Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

BRITISH SUMMER TIME

The VICE-CHAMBLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1982 be made in the form of the draft that was laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HIGHLAND REGION (BANAVIE LEVEL CROSSING) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

COMMANDER TRESTRAIL

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there will be laid before this House a Return of a Report of an Inquiry by the Right honourable Lord Bridge of Harwich into the appointment as The Queen's Police Officer, and the activities, of Commander Trestrail; to determine whether security was breached or put at risk, and advise whether in consequence any change in security arrangements is necessary or desirable.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the latest unemployment figures, both nationally and regionally; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to see a reduction in the numbers of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest number of those who are unemployed in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): At 14 October the number of unemployed people claiming benefit in the United Kingdom was 3,049,008. The comparable regional figures were published in the press notice issued by my Department on 18 November. A copy is in the House of Commons Library.
Lower inflation and interest rates provide a firmer base from which industry and commerce can regain lost customers at home and abroad, thereby generating more jobs. The timing and extent of that cannot be predicted and depends upon the ability of those concerned to offer lower prices, better quality, speedier delivery and better service than their foreign competitors.

Mr. Skinner: Who can believe those figures after what has happened in the past few weeks? Instead of fiddling the figures, why does not the Minister for unemployment and his partner in crime, the Prime Minister, do something about reducing the real figures of unemployment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the resolve that was shown during the Falklands invasion and the money that was found for that effort, the British people now know that money is available and that it can be used to reduce unemployment? Does he agree that money is also available to reduce the working week to 35 hours and the retirement age to 60? Moreover—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not being fair to other hon. Members.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman could have done better than that. Perhaps he would consider the support that he gave to a pay claim of 31 per cent. Perhaps he would also consider whether, if it had been granted—indeed, if it had been supported by the people for whom the hon. Gentleman purports to speak—it would have caused more unemployment or generated more new jobs.

Mr. Dykes: As existing measures and policies seem unlikely, on balance, to produce a fall in unemployment, when does my right hon. Friend consider that additional measures will be necessary?

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not hear the latter part of my reply. I emphasised that it was the


business of those in commerce and industry so to conduct their affairs that they became sufficiently competitive to win back markets that have been lost.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Secretary of State agree that the fresh wave of redundancies and closures that are sweeping through the West Midlands give the lie to any claim of economic recovery? Is he aware that a parliamentary reply that I received last week stated that the highest recorded unemployment in the West Midlands prior to the present Government coming into office was 6½ per cent.? Is he further aware that it is now 16½ per cent., and rising? Why should the West Midlands be turned into a wasteland as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's disastrous policies?

Mr. Tebbit: If the West Midlands had learnt earlier the lesson that it has now learnt—that it is essential to rid industry of people such as Red Robbo and Mr. Thornett and get on with the business of producing motor cars instead of calling politically motivated strikes—there would be far more jobs in the West Midlands today.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the best long-term hope of providing more employment lies in the encouragement of small industries? Will he further confirm that the Government have taken more than 95 specific measures to encourage new small industries and that they are having a substantial effect?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. The worst possible result for all concerned in industry would be achieved if anyone was barmy enough to believe that the way out of our problems lies through a devaluation of 30 per cent. in sterling parity or in the sort of talk that we heard today from the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). The right hon. Gentleman confessed that the programme of the Labour Party which a week or so ago was a commitment to reduce unemployment is now not a commitment, not a promise, not a pledge, but only a hope.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: As the Secretary of State has persistently argued that the rise in unemployment is due to the world recession, will he confirm that the increase in Britain has been more than twice that of the average of all other Western industrial countries since May 1979? Will he also confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to give the TUC any prospect of immediate or rapid recovery?

Mr. Tebbitt: The right hon. Lady over-simplifies matters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have persistently pointed out that there are several causes of unemployment. One is the recession. A second is the uncompetitiveness of British industry. A third is the degree of destocking of labour, if that is the right expression—the shaking out of labour—that has had to occur in many industries that were grossly overmanned. Many still are overmanned.
The right hon. Lady should not seek to over-simplify matters by blaming the world recession. It plays a major, but not the only, part. What I found disappointing at the meeting last night between the TUC and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself was the great difficulty that still exists in persuading the TUC of the need to make British industry more competitive.

Mr. Varley: Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the truth when he refers to what he claims is the Government's success in bringing down the year-on-year rate of inflation? Does he admit that it has been brought about through the whip of mass unemployment and the deliberate and systematic destruction of one-fifth of manufacturing industry?

Mr. Tebbit: No, Sir. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should persist with that question. It has been explained to him more than once that the high level of unemployment that we are experiencing is the cost, not of reducing levels of inflation, but of high levels of inflation, sparked off principally by the ridiculous policies of the Labour Government in the years when he was a Minister, during which time unemployment more than doubled.

New Training Initiative

Mr. Needham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress of the new training initiative.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): To date, yes, Sir.

Mr. Needham: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the CBI on the tremendous efforts that it has made to find sufficient places for young people under the NTI? Is he satisfied that industry and commerce will be capable of finding suitable opportunities for the vast majority of young people next September?

Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that I congratulate the CBI constantly on what it has done to encourage industrialists and men of commerce to come forward as sponsors of the youth training scheme. By 1 September next year we shall have enough schemes, and I shall be satisfied.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is there not a glaring deficiency when tens of thousands of 17-year-olds are not likely to be included in the scheme? Does not the scheme emphasise the plight of the long-term unemployed aged between 20 and 25? Is it not time that the Government provided a chance for the House to debate this important scheme?

Mr. Morrison: We hope to be able to accommodate unemployed 17-year-olds. For the 20 to 25 age group, the community programme can help. The question of a debate is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) the Shadow Leader of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we shall make greater progress if hon. Members who are called to put supplementary questions ask only one. This will enable other hon. Members to be called.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has increased in the past 10 years; and what changes there have been in the numbers employed in the professional, business and financial sectors.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): In the 10 years to June 1982 there


was an increase in unemployment of 2,180,000. Over the same period, employment in insurance, banking, finance and business services, and professional and scientific services, increased by 783,000.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the figures illustrate a great movement from one type of employment to another? Whatever the level of unemployment overall, or the prospects for jobs, is not the lesson to be learnt that if the Government make money available to promote jobs in industry it should be spent on promoting new businesses in new industries, not on preserving uneconomic jobs in declining industries?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is right. It is perhaps appropriate to emphasise the importance of jobs in the service industries and how those jobs have expanded less rapidly in this country than elsewhere over the past 10 years. It is also important to recognise their importance in future.

Mr. James Lamond: As the Minister has referred to the appalling increase in unemployment over the past 10 years, argued by the Secretary of State to be the fault of very one—business, the world recession and so on—except himself, will he say why we should continue to pay for the Department of Employment if it can do nothing? Is it not time that the Minister did a bit of labour destocking in his own Department?

Mr. Waddington: I do not really blame the hon. Gentleman. Often, hon. Members prepare their supplementaries before hearing the Minister's answer. I did not say anything of the sort. I said that jobs in service industries have not increased as fast in this country in the past 10 years as they have, for instance, in the United States. That is a lesson for all of us to learn.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Labour Party's proposals to remedy the past 10 years of unemployment bear an uncanny resemblance to the French experience of rising inflation, rising unemployment, a wages and prices freeze, and cuts in social expenditure?

Mr. Waddington: My right hon. Friend recently attended an EEC meeting at which every Minister spoke in similar terms about the absurd remedy put forward by the Labour Opposition. There is no other way forward than that put forward by the Government. It lies in making industry more competitive and reducing the rate of inflation.

Mr. Foster: Is not the great distinction that under this Government employment in the service sector, far from rising, has been reducing since 1979? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman contemplate the effect on the north of England, where there are far too few jobs of this kind, which means that many of our able school leavers have to go elsewhere?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends fail to realise that many of these industries can only be supported by the profitability of manufacturing industries. The Labour Party's policies are devoted to making manufacturing industry less profitable.

Wages Council Factory Inspectors

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many Department of Employment wages council factory inspectors there are.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): On 1 September 1982 there were 116 outdoor inspectors and 13 senior wages inspectors in post.

Mr. Eastham: As 12 months ago there were 177 factory inspectors, can the reduction be construed as meaning that the Government are encouraging firms to pay less than starvation wages and to break the law? Are the Government not ashamed that they are returning the nation to the 1930s?

Mr. Alison: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot draw that conclusion. The number of inspectors has been reduced, but the efficiency of the inspectorate has increased.

Mr. Radice: Is the Minister aware that the reduction in the number of inspectors has led to fewer inspections and the highest level of underpayment ever recorded? Does he understand that, far from encouraging employment, as the Government claim, they have given the green light to Scrooge-like employers?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman gave the answer to his own question. I agree that there are fewer inspections. However, more establishments have been found to be in breach, which means that the inspections were deliberately focused on the places where the shortfalls were most likely to be found.

Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and women, respectively, were unemployed in Newcastle-under-Lyme in May 1979 and at the latest date for which figures are available in 1982.

Mr. Waddington: At May 1979 there were 1,209 males and 367 females registered as unemployed in the Newcastle-under-Lyme employment office area. The corresponding figures at October 1982 were 4,112 males and 1,726 females. The numbers of unemployed claimants at October 1982—from now on the count is based on claimants—were 3,663 males and 1,272 females.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that as unemployment has more than trebled in my constituency great misery and tragedy have been brought to many families? Is he aware that in my locality, where there have been good industrial relations, low pay and good quality products, people believe that present redundancies and the further redundancies that are being declared are the result solely of the Government's economic policies?

Mr. Waddington: I am fully aware of the misery and tragedy that can result from unemployment, but we must not fool people into believing that there are easy answers. The answers have been given often, as Opposition Members know in their hearts. They include making British industry more profitable, which is the only way in which new jobs can be created.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the recent devaluation of between 5 and 6 per cent.


will be extremely helpful to the pottery industry as well as to the heavy manufacturing industry in the West Midlands? Will he also confirm that the Government do not intend to attempt to reverse that devaluation by intervening on the foreign exchanges?

Mr. Waddington: It is not for me to comment on my hon. Friend's last remark. That matter does not come within my province. My hon. Friend is entirely right to point to the help that will be given to industry as a result of the fall in value of the pound, for which the CBI has been calling for a long time.

Community Programme

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from voluntary organisations about the Government's community programme for unemployed people.

Mr. Alison: The community programme began on 1 October 1982 and the initial response from sponsors has been encouraging. By 8 November 4,041 temporary jobs under the programme had been approved and 60,000 further jobs are being negotiated with project sponsors. I am satisfied that the representations from voluntary organisations, which I listed in a reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) on 26 October, were based on a misunderstanding of the programme.

Mr. Marks: Is the Minister aware that there is still considerable anxiety among voluntary organisations, which regard the scheme as cosmetic? They ask: what is the true cost of the scheme to the Government? Is it the same as for the original scheme that was announced? Will the Minister see the voluntary organisations on a national basis to consider the programme?

Mr. Alison: We are always willing to see any voluntary organisation that wants to speak about the programme. There has been no concealment of the cost figures. The gross cost, including that of the current community enterprise programme, which will provide 130,000 jobs, will be £575 million in a full year. The on-cost of the new community programme will be an additional £185 million.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are glad that the new programme is available throughout the country, as it recognises the needs of the long-term unemployed? Is it possible to incorporate some form of retraining for certain skills in that programme? We shall want people to be available for jobs at the end of the programme.

Mr. Alison: When the programme was conceived it was thought that there should be a training element in it, if desired. The sum of £10 of the average of £60 a week per community programme trainee can be allocated to training. The whole of the £440 overhead annual costs per capita can also be allocated to training if desired.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is it correct that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised £150 million net expenditure for the programme the Manpower Services Commission proposed a scheme under which there could be another 100,000 full-time jobs at a wage of £90 a week, but that was rejected because the Secretary of State for Employment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to cut wages for people on the scheme and the average is now £60 for part-time employment?

Mr. Alison: No, Sir. We have not cut the rate for the job, which remains the basic criterion. By averaging the funds available we have introduced the concept of part-time work. Some people will draw less than £60 a week, but many will draw the full average sum of £85 or £90 a week.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many preserved railways present good opportunities for employment and training, particularly for young people, in many skills connected with engineering? Will he make a direct approach to the Association of Railway Preservation Societies to see how the community programme can best be used both for the railways and the individuals concerned?

Mr. Alison: As a fellow railway enthusiast, I assure my hon. Friend that I intend to keep an eye on that. I hope to visit the Didcot railway preservation centre in connection with the scheme before long.

Leeds

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out in the Official Report the unemployment statistics for the Leeds travel-to-work area for the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waddington: In accordance with the hon. Member's request, the figures will be published in the Official Report.
In October 1982 the number of unemployed claimants in the Leeds travel-to-work area—from now on the count is based on claimants—was 41,381.

Mr. Dean: Is the Minister aware that the Leeds travel-to-work area has a history of reasonable wage levels and good industrial relations, but that the figures show that unemployment in that area has more than doubled during the Government's period of office, although there are many industries there, because Leeds is not a single industry city? Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for Industry to restore to Leeds the assisted area status that was stupidly removed in August this year?

Mr. Waddington: I shall see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is made aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I stress that the Government's task is to create the right environment in which firms can prosper. I remember that in April 1981, in an Adjournment debate, the hon. Gentleman complained of high interest rates. I am sure that he will wish to congratulate the Government on what has been achieved since then.

Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that in recent months Morley and other towns on the edge of Leeds have been experiencing an increase in unemployment, not a fall or stabilisation, as Ministers continue to claim? Unemployment has more than trebled under the Government. Is the Minister further aware that that is a direct result of the devastation wreaked on our manufacturing industry by the economics of despair which the Minister and Treasury Ministers continue to inflict on this country?

Mr. Waddington: I do not agree with that proposition. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the textile industry. He will be aware, as I am, of the traumas suffered by the textile industry because of imports. He knows as well as I do that we are a major trading nation,


exporting one-third of our manufactured output, and that it would be dangerous for us to indulge in a protectionist war.
Following are the details:


Numbers registered as unemployed in the Leeds travel-to-work area at October in each of the past five years were


Year
Number


1978
18,034


1979
17,802


1980
28,628


1981
39,456


1982
45,101

Fair Wages

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what derogation has been made by the United Kingdom from International Labour Organisation convention 94 relating to fair wages.

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals regarding the fair wages resolution.

Mr. Tebbit: The United Kingdom Government have denounced International Labour convention No. 94. The denunciation was registered by the International Labour Office on 20 September 1982 and will take effect on 20 September 1983. The House will be invited during the current Session to approve a motion proposing the rescission of the fair wages resolution.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Secretary of State for unemployment aware that working people will draw the conclusion from that statement that the Government are hell-bent on destroying not only their jobs but their standard of living and are forcing down the wages of those who are still employed?

Mr. Tebbit: No, Sir. None of the hon. Gentleman's propositions have a vestige of truth in them.

Mr. Cryer: Is the Secretary of State not concerned about people having fair wages? Is he not worried about the possibility of contractors and subcontractors paying less than fair wages? If he is concerned about fair wages, why did he not allow views to be expressed on the fair wages resolution, instead of registering a denunciation when Parliament was not sitting, thereby avoiding any vestige of parliamentary scrutiny at the time of the denunciation?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard the information that there will shortly be a debate on this matter, and I look forward to it. I am interested to note that the hon. Gentleman has adopted the concept of a fair wage, which I presume makes him a supporter of some form of incomes policy and of wage fixing outside industrial bargaining.

Mr. Viggers: What is fair about wages that price people out of jobs?

Mr. Tebbit: That is the point, and that is one of the reasons why the Government have decided to take this step. As my hon. Friend knows, there is an undertaking on the part of the Government that if a sufficient number of people in industry behave like lemmings and price

themselves out of work, we are bound to make sure that we prevent other people from pricing themselves into work. That is crazy.

Mr. Race: How many countries, having ratified ILO convention 94, have now denounced it? Is it true that the United Kingdom is the only country to have done so? Will the Minister take advice from a former Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, which is set out in Hansard in 1946, when the fair wages resolution was passed? Mr. Macmillan denounced the actions of a future Right-wing Government that might wish to remove the resolution.

Mr. Tebbit: Even the hon. Gentleman will accept that there have been changes in the world since 1946. Although the United Kingdom, having accepted the convention, is the first country to denounce it, among the countries which have always had more sense than to become involved in accepting the convention are the United States of America, West Germany and Japan, our competitors, and Commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Other European countries, such as Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Portugal, Greece and Luxembourg and—this will please the hon. Gentleman—all the Eastern bloc countries have never complied with the convention.

Mr. John Townend: Will this derogation enable the Government to abolish the wages councils?

Mr. Tebbit: No. I am afraid that that is another convention.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for nearly 100 years the House has unanimously affirmed its belief that British Governments should set an example as good employers? Is this what he is now retreating from? Is the Secretary of State aware that the way in which he is proceeding in this matter is scandalous and may be unconstitutional, because, without consultation with anyone, and without listening to the views of the House, he has unilaterally renounced the ILO convention, which is based on our record of setting a good example in these matters? Is he further aware that he has thrown this Parliament, Government and country into the gutter at the ILO?

Mr. Tebbit: But for the conventions of the House, I should not bother to answer, because that question is a lot of nonsense. The Government are not retreating from their obligations; they are making sure that we do not prevent people from finding and doing jobs at prices that they think are reasonable.
There is no substance in what the right hon. Gentleman said about the constitutional position. I have behaved in a proper manner. Having consulted, as was my duty, the TUC and the CBI, and considered what they said, I reached my conclusion on the renunciation. I hope that shortly the House will reach a conclusion on the matter.

Unemployment Statistics (International Comparisons)

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will compare the percentage of the work force who are unemployed in the United Kingdom with the figures for (a) Switzerland and (b) Jersey.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The latest available unemployment rates, using figures on national definitions, are 13·1 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 0·5 per cent. in


Switzerland and 1·7 per cent. in Jersey. They are not directly comparable, because of differences in concepts, coverage and methods of compilation.

Mr. Howell: Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures are not only enlightening, but disturbing, in view of our experience? Is he aware that the one thing that Switzerland and Jersey have in common is that people there have the right to work and the obligation to work, rather than rely on welfare benefits? Will he assure the House that a study will be made to find out whether we can benefit from their successful methods?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that the level of unemployment benefit is bound to have a consequence for the willingness to search for a job. My hon. Friend has made invidious comparisions, and I agree with him, but he should know—as I am sure he does—that, compared with Canada, Germany, the United States of America, the Netherlands and Ireland, our increase in unemployment over the past 12 months has been substantially lower.

Mr. Radice: Will the Minister confirm that since May 1979 United Kingdom unemployment has increased more rapidly than that of any of our main competitors?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I said. What he says may be the case, but I was speaking about the last 12 months.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that in both Switzerland and Jersey people in public life recognise that banking and insurance are providers of jobs and creators of wealth? The massive investment in Perth by the General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation of £30 million for a new headquarters has not been received well in some quarters. Is not that attitude the reason why this sector does better in Switzerland and Jersey than it does here?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that jobs in the commercial sectors of banking and insurance are just as worth while as jobs in manufacturing industry.

Mr. Straw: Does the Minister recognise that while the British unemployment rate throughout the period of the Labour Government was about the average of that of our major competitors, under this Government it has risen and made Britain the unemployment blackspot of the Western world? How does the Minister square that apalling record with the explicit avowal by the Prime Minister during the general election campaign that Tory policies would not lead to a rise in unemployment?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have reaped the whirlwind of a high inflation rate, lack of competitiveness and overmanning. Had that not been the case, perhaps the level of unemployment would not now be where it is. It looks as though the Labour Party's proposals for the future would lead to the same again.

Apprenticeships

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to improve the opportunities for apprenticeships for young persons leaving schools.

Mr. Peter Morrison: This year we are providing over £50 million to support training for first-year and redundant

apprentices, and from next September young people taken on as apprentices can come within the scope of our £1 billion new youth training scheme.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that, compared with 10 years ago, the situation is now serious? There are many companies, in both the private and the public sector, which a decade ago had dozens of apprentices but who now have none. So far this year progress has been minimal. What gives the Minister any hope that the new package in September will bring about a drastic change?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the pattern of working life has changed radically over the past 10 years. I believe strongly, and I think it is agreed throughout the House, that the new youth training scheme is a basis on which we can build for the future.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will the Minister confirm that the number of apprenticeships has declined to 60 per cent. of the 1979 figure? Does he agree that so far there is no sign that young men and women can reach craft status through any of the short-term schemes that the Government have introduced, and this at a time when skill shortages are likely to be one of the main blocks to recovery, should it ever come?

Mr. Morrison: As the right hon. Lady is aware, we have increased the number of first-year apprentices whom we are supporting from 20,000 in 1979 to 35,000 now, so we are taking account of her point. With regard to the future, the right hon. Lady will also be aware that one of the three proposals in the new training initiative is that we should completely reform the apprenticeship system. Perhaps we should be looking forwards, not backwards as she is suggesting.

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: On what date will the youth training scheme come into operation? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the scheme's products will be fully accepted into industry as apprentices?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. and learned Friend will probably be aware that the date for the introduction of the new training scheme is September 1983. We hope that there will be integration between the apprenticeship system and the new youth training scheme.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister not understand that plummeting overall apprenticeship totals are a chilling indicator of the rate of Britain's deindustrialisation?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is surely aware that the Government have taken great steps and have put enormous, increased resources aside to deal with that problem.

Hard Rock Mining

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Secretary of State for employment what was the number employed in hard rock mining at the latest date and 10 years previously in Cornwall.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The limited official information available shows that in June 1978, the latest available date, there were 1,300 employees in Cornwall in mining and quarrying, other than for coal, stone or slate. In June 1971 there were 1,200.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister help this important part of the Cornish economy by investigating the


circumstances in which a small private company, Wheal Concorde, in my constituency was recently forced to lay off all its employees? Is he aware that the reason appears to be the sudden and arbitrary refusal by Rio Tinto Zinc to treat Wheal Concorde's ore, which is said to be worth about £400,000, thus destroying the company's cash flow, and perhaps the company at the same time?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not aware of the exact details. I suspect that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, and I shall ensure that he is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's points.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as there is a direct connection between rock mining in Cornwall and slate mining in the Lakelands, might it not prove to be a good way of getting people back to work in areas of high unemployment if the Government were to invest in that industry and help with the pricing of its products on the market?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman would have a point if money could be made available, but not at taxpayers' expense.

Secret Ballots

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to bring forward proposals on secret ballots for the election of trade union officials.

Mr. Tebbit: I hope to issue a consultative document shortly.

Mr. Maclennan: Why has the Secretary of State left a measure of trade union reform that should have appeared at the beginning of the Government's programme to the last year of their life? Is he saying that he has now been converted to the view that has been advanced by the Social Democrats and the Liberals that giving the trade unions back to their members would prove to be the most important reform of industial relations?

Mr. Tebbit: No doubt the House will ask itself why the hon. Gentleman and all bar one of his colleagues in the Social Democratic Party consistently supported Governments who opposed every measure of trade union reform that was brought before the House. The House might be inclined to ask when the hon. Gentleman changed his mind. I have taken advice from several people on this issue, and particularly from the man who said:
For more years than I care to remember the extreme Left have been intriguing, lying and manipulating the votes of trade unions.
That was Mr. Frank Chapple. It is time that we helped him.

Mr. Prentice: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had hoped to get the Front Benches in, but time will defeat us.

Mr. Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members would have liked such a proposal to be included in the Gracious Speech? However, we may be prepared to wait a little longer if my right hon. Friend's ultimate proposals deal not only with the election of officials but with secret ballots prior to the calling of major strikes, because such proposals are long overdue.

Mr. Tebbit: I must ask my right hon. Friend to await the Green Paper. However, it is greatly to his credit that

he stood for election on the programme of reform that was conducted by the previous Secretary of State for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as it has been by me.

Mr. Varley: rose—

Mrs. Shirley Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady knows that if she gives notice that she intends to raise the matter on the Adjournment that will prevent other hon. Members from being called.

Mrs. Williams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way in which you can protect hon. Members from the expression of an inaccuracy by the Secretary of State?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Inaccuracy is a way of life in the House.

Mr. Varley: Is the Secretary of State aware that his decision to produce the Green Paper in the final Session of Parliament is no more than a squalid attempt to divert attention from the disastrous economic policies that the Government have followed? More evil men than the Secretary of State have been trying to destroy the trade union movement, but they will not succeed.

Mr. Tebbit: I used to doubt those psychiatrists and sociologists who said that job insecurity made people aggressive, but I am beginning to change my mind. I ask myself why the right hon. Gentleman so consistently opposes programmes for democratisation of the trade unions. Is it because when the miners had their chance to speak they slapped the right hon. Gentleman in the face through their ballot?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Greenway: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 23 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Speaker of the Syrian People "s Assembly. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Greenway: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and ask whether she agrees with the speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in which he described the Labour Party's defence policy as a divisive and insular irrelevance? Has my right hon. Friend read the remarks of Mr. Andropov, who said that the Russians were not naive enough to disarm unilaterally? Does she agree that the Labour Party is very naive?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend and the speech that he quoted, in that the only way to peace is through agreement to disarm multilaterally. We shall then reduce nuclear weapons on all sides and maintain a balance at all times. I noticed the statement made in the Soviet Union, which was reported this morning and which I believe was mentioned on the radio, that no one should expect the Soviet Union to disarm unilaterally, and that
We are not naive people.


I hope that that lesson will not be lost on unilateralist Members of Parliament.

Mr. Foot: Does the Prime Minister not accept that the most serious aspect of this recent issue is the statement yesterday by President Reagan on the proposed deployment of MX missiles? What consultations were there with the British Government before President Reagan made that statement, and what representations did the right hon. Lady make when the subject was raised? Does she not agree that President Reagan's proposal will involve a serious departure from the SALT II agreement?

The Prime Minister: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. The United States of America is perfectly entitled to take steps to modernise its own strategic nuclear force. That is what the announcement about the MX intercontinental ballistic missile was. I do not accept that it will necessarily undercut the SALT agreements. We must remember that President Reagan made proposals about disarmament and that we are waiting for a response from the Soviet Union.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady say what use there is in talking about new arms control arrangements if some of the old arrangements have been torn up? Is it not a fact that President Reagan's proposals, if carried out, would involve a grave breach of SALT II and that it would involve a departure from article 4 of that treaty? Has the right hon. Lady made any representations to the United States on this matter, or does she not care whether the nuclear arms race goes ahead at a much faster speed?

The Prime Minister: I care that we have sufficient to deter an aggressor. That means keeping the United States strategic nuclear force modernised. It means having a reply to intercontinental ballistic missiles, and it means having regard to the level of our conventional Armed Forces. The Americans have said that their basing plan for MX missiles does not undercut the SALT agreements in any respect.

Mr. Foot: This is the most serious matter in the world. We want to know what representations the British Government have made on this matter—or did we just say to President Reagan "You can go ahead, irrespective of whether it injures SALT II"? If the right hon. Lady consults article 4 of SALT II, she will see that this is a breach of that article. I want to know what attitude the British Government took when the proposal was made.

The Prime Minister: It is not for us to tell the United States what to do about its strategic nuclear force. It is for us to recognise that its strategic nuclear force is the final guarantor of Europe's liberty. I have told the right hon. Gentleman that the Americans have said that their basing plan for MX missiles does not undercut the SALT agreements in any respect. We believe that we should negotiate from strength. The right hon. Gentleman would negotiate only from weakness, and he would have no hope of coming to a reasonable settlement.

Mr. Eggar: In view of Mr. Andropov's statement, are we not fortunate that the Labour Party spent so much money on Chevaline when it was in office?

The Prime Minister: That is a fact which some Labour Members conveniently like to forget.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: There are other serious matters relating to the state of the economy. Will the right hon.

Lady explain why relations between the Government and British industry are now worse than at almost any time, except for a brief period when the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) sought to tell industry how to do its job?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman at that time was supporting the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). I also point out that the premise of his question is wrong. Relations between British industry and the Government are not bad. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed some of the votes at the CBI conference which supported our policy.

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Powell: Will the Prime Minister say whether Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins are correct in stating in their book on the Falklands that she despatched three submarines to the South Atlantic on 29 March?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but I did not hear the whole of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have no idea about those two books. I have not read them, because I have been too busy doing other things.

Mr. Churchill: As the United States has not added to its strategic nuclear inventory of missiles since 1967, when it became static at 1,710 missiles, and as during the same period the Soviet Union has been deploying intercontinental ballistic missiles at the rate of 100 a year, is it not humbug and hypocrisy for the Leader of the Opposition to make such a song and dance about the fact that the United States is now belatedly taking steps to modernise its own capability, which is substantially below the SALT II limit?

The Prime Minister: Yes.
Later—

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's unsatisfactory reply to my question, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government on policy towards the resolution agreed at the United Nations on 4 November in relation to the Falkland Islands.

The Prime Minister: We were in frequent contact with the United States Government before the vote on 4 November, and they were left in no doubt about our views concerning this resolution.

Mr. Dalyell: What hard evidence does the Prime Minister have for her statement that the American vote wes an aberration?

The Prime Minister: We were very grateful for the support of the United States Government throughout the Falklands campaign. They have supported, and we expect them to continue to support, a country which is an ally and which stands for the same democratic principles and for self-determination. To depart from that, to support Argentina, would be an aberration.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Was it not indeed an aberration, and would not the United States be better employed in mobilising international support for the United Kingdom, as sovereign power, in islands that are vital to the strategy of the West, including the United States?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the frequent comments about so-called social security scroungers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not on an open question now. We are dealing with the Falklands.

Mr. Strang: As at least one newspaper which supported the Prime Minister's Falklands campaign blurted out the truth, namely, that negotiations on the basis of the resolution should take place as soon as the election is over, even if we have a Conservative Government, is the Prime Minister aware that it is bad enough for her to spend £400 million a year on the garrison in the Falklands, but that it would be intolerable if she sacrificed the lives of more Service men in defence of this relic of our imperial past?

The Prime Minister: There can be no question of negotiations on sovereignty for the Falkland Islands. It would be a betrayal of those who fought and died.

Engagements

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an unfilled vacancy, and that is the leadership of the free world at a particularly perilous moment? Is she further aware that, as the senior leader in the West—[Interruption]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House does itself no good by all this noise. If we get into the habit of trying to shout down what we do not like, democracy will come to an end here.

Sir Anthony Meyer: —she is uniquely qualified to fill that post if she can demonstrate the same intensity of concern for the well-being of the peoples of the European Community and the Atlantic alliance as she has convincingly demonstrated for the well-being of the people of this country?

The Prime Minister: I realise what my hon. Friend is saying, but anyone who attempted to self-style himself as the leader of either the free world or the European Community would not get far or have much influence. In

the European Community we are a partnership of 10 sovereign nations, each representing its own interests, but realising that it is better for all and each of us to do certain things in common. We shall continue to represent British interests, and we shall continue to try to seek equitable policies for the Community as a whole. That is the best leadership that we can give.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the frequent references to so-called social security exploiters, is it not outrageous that millions of pounds are lost to Britain because of tax evasion? Will the Prime Minister respond to the Civil Service trade unions by making personnel available for the collection of such vital revenue and in so doing respond to the views of the Public Accounts Committee?

The Prime Minister: If there is fraud of any kind, either in connection with social security or tax, there are people allocated to root it out, after which it becomes a matter for the police. There are such people in the Department of Health and Social Security and in the back tax department of the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Dickens: For the sake of the strength of the £ sterling, will my right hon. Friend please confirm to the House that the Government intend to stand steadfast behind their economic policies and that we have merely requested local government to spend up to its controlled agreed quotas?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. No one in the market should have any doubt about our determination to hold fast to our strategy to beat inflation. Sound money remains at the heart of our economic policies.
We have asked local authorities to spend up to and not beyond their allocations. Indeed, it is our policy to keep all public expenditure within the cash limits that have been set.

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise again a matter which I raised with you a couple of weeks ago? There is an increasing tendency among hon. Members—today it was a right hon. Member—to raise points of order in the middle of Question Time, which takes away the rights of other Back-Bench Members.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The House knows that I have asked right hon. and hon. Members to wait until after Question Time to raise points of order. I shall do my best to ensure that that happens in future.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was it not the case that the right hon. Member desired protection, and does not the House need protection from spurious points of order?

Local Authority Expenditure (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about public expenditure provision for housing and other local authority capital spending in Wales.
First, I want to say something about the current year, 1982–83. Monitoring of capital payments by local authorities in Wales at the end of the first half year showed that there was likely to be a substantial underspend of the cash limit. The main reason for that is that housing authorities are not using their capital receipts for new capital work. To reduce the expected underspend, housing authorities have been told that they may increase their spending on house renovation in the current year without limit.
I have also reviewed the position of other local authorities, and where they appeared to be spending up to their previously expected pattern they have been offered additional capital allocations for work in the current year. Furthermore, some urban programme schemes for which provision was not originally available have now been approved and consequent additional allocations made. Altogether those additional allocations total £3·58 million.
I now turn to the provision for 1983–84. I have not yet completed consideration of the allocation of resources to particular services within my public expenditure block. However, I can now say something about the resources to be assigned to housing and other local authority capital expenditure.
In forming my conclusions I have taken account of the estimated level of local authority capital receipts in 1983–84. Hon. Members will know that as a general rule local authorities can spend their capital receipts on new capital projects, in addition to the capital allocations I make. The exception is housing, where I have previously required that only half of the housing receipts should be freely available for any capital spending, the other half being built into the housing allocation.
Local authority capital receipts in Wales next year are forecast to be £90 million, of which £85 million is forecast to be housing receipts. As I have said, housing authorities have not been using their capital receipts for new capital spending. With the object of achieving a larger capital spend, I have decided to reduce the proportion of unallocated housing receipts to 25 per cent. The remaining 75 per cent. will be built in to the allocations. I shall be laying before the House accordingly regulations under section 72 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
After consultation with the Welsh local authorities, I have today made rent and maintenance determinations for 1983–84. I have determined the increase in the local contribution for rent at 85p, and the increase in maintenance and management expenditure at 7 per cent. On the basis of those determinations the amount available for spending on housing by local authorities and the Housing Corporation in Wales next year will be £202·3 million. If local authorities underspend by £80 million this year—the figure referred to in a parliamentary answer by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales yesterday—that will represent an increase of over 75 per cent. On the most optimistic assumption that I have seen for this year's expenditure, which is about £169 million,

there will be an increase of 20 per cent. Together with the change in the treatment of capital receipts which I have outlined, this will enable me to allocate £139 million to local authorities in respect of housing. That is an increase of 13 per cent. on the current year's allocation. The allocation to the Housing Corporation will be maintained in real terms.
For other services I have decided to allocate the following amounts—education, £34·325 million; transport, £60·068 million; personal social services, £6·641 million; and for all other services, £42·163 million.
Together with the allocation for housing, that makes a total provision for local authority capital expenditure of just over £282 million, excluding the urban programme to which I shall refer later. In addition, there will be the £41·3 million I intend to allocate to the Housing Corporation.
At the local authority level, an authority receives its allocation as a block and can spend it on whatever capital projects it wishes. I shall circulate in the Official Report a table showing the allocations to individual authorities. Each local authoritiy will receive a formal notification of its allocation.
There is one more thing I wish to say about housing. In the particular circumstances of the Welsh housing stock, I attach the greatest importance to renovation grants. I have already announced the continuation of higher rates of grant until the end of 1983–84 and I am anxious to assist local authorities in meeting the resulting demand. Therefore, I have decided that, if a local authority's expenditure on renovation grants exceeds a specified level in 1983–84, I shall make an additional allocation to cover the excess. The Welsh Office will be writing to housing authorities about this in a few days' time.
I also want to tell the House about my intention as regards the urban programme and urban development grants. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment told the House of the importance we attach to the new urban development grant scheme. The response in Wales has been encouraging and we are considering the imaginative schemes which have been submitted. For the moment I have allocated £21 million to UDGs and the traditional urban programme together. I shall decide how much to devote to UDGs and on the allocation of the remainder to local authority schemes under the traditional programme once our consideration is complete.
The allocations that I have announced will enable local authorities in Wales to undertake a substantial programme of capital work next year. On the most optimisitc assumption about this year's spend, there will be an increase of about £50 million and on pessimistic assumptions a good deal more. That presents them with an opportunity to improve the infrastructure of the community and to tackle some of the problems which we all recognise.
Those authorites with enterprise zones in their areas are presented with particular opportunities—Swansea, where such a good start has been made, and the new zone at Flint which I announced on 15 November. As I said then, I am giving further consideration to the establishment of a third. Throughout Wales, the local communities will benefit, the construction industry will be assisted, and new jobs will be created provided that local authorities take full advantage of the capital allocations I make and use to the full the capital receipts that come in.

Mr. Alec Jones: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has made his statement to the House, although I must confess that even with the aid of a calculator I need more than half an hour to understand its contents. I welcome the statement if it means a real increase in capital spending in Wales both from the point of view of local government services and much needed jobs.
The Secretary of State proposes in the current year to try to encourage increased spending on house renovation and a certain hoped-for increase in capital allocations. It is probably far too late in the year to do much about underspend during the current year. Therefore, his statement is right in that it concentrates mostly on the coming year 1983–84.
I can understand the natural desire of the Secretary of State to improve his housing achievements in Wales, since the present Government have probably the worst record on house building in Wales of any Government since the war. Anything that can be done to improve that is to be welcomed.
The Secretary of State, in an effort to use more receipts from the sale of council houses for new building, is reducing the proportion of unallocated housing receipts to 25 per cent. and building the remaining 75 per cent. into local authority allocations. Is this not a further intrusion into the freedom which he previously boasted he was anxious to give to local authorities? Will he consider using the rate support grant settlement to compensate local authorities for the interest on capital receipts that he is now asking them to forgo by using the receipts from sales of council houses for new building? Of the total increased level of expenditure announced, how much is from the sale of council houses and the sale of other assets, and how much, if any, new money are the Government putting into local government?
The Secretary of State announced rent increases next year of 85p and a 7 per cent. increase in maintenance and management. Is it necessary for all local authorities to raise rents by that amount? How many local authorities in Wales, for instance, are now in surplus on their housing revenue accounts, and, if they are in surplus, what is the justification for this further increase?
The Secretary of State has allocated £6·641 million for personal social services. Does that item include any transfer of funds from the National Health Service to cover any increase in jointly funded schemes?
I note that the Housing Corporation allocation is only to be maintained in real terms. Does that mean that the Secretary of State does not realise that housing associations can play an increased role in dealing with housing needs in Wales? The Secretary of State has given us some details of the increases in expenditure on housing. What are the percentage increases in real terms on education, transport and personal social services?
If local authorities incur current expenditure and loan charges as a consequence of the capital expenditure on which the right hon. Gentleman is encouraging them to embark today, will he give an assurance that if such increased current expenditure takes them over their expenditure targets for next year they will not have their rate support grant reduced?
Finally, I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I certainly prefer him in his new role as a spendthrift from Pembrokeshire.

Mr. Edwards: I recognise the complexity of the statement and the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) has raised many points on it.
In response to the right hon. Gentleman's final point, I emphasise that all we are seeking to do is to encourage local government to spend up to the cash limits previously announced. No change in the Government's economic strategy is implied in that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the overall increase in allocations. Including the urban programme, the increase amounts to 8 per cent. and is regardless of the actual spend on capital receipts.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to housing renovations and suggested that it was perhaps too late to achieve much increased expenditure in the current year. In 1981–82 the local authorities spent only a little more than £16 million on renovation grants. It is estimated that this year they will spend about £45 million, and next year we expect them to spend at least £70 million. The total expenditure on renovation grants during the period of office of the previous Labour Government was not more than about £57 million, so that is a very sharp upturn indeed.
I do not agree that it is too late to do much about underspend during the current year. I had an example drawn to my attention only in the past 24 hours. In Rhymney, the local authority is currently refusing to give improvement grants, despite the fact that we have given assurances to the local authority about the matter. It is holding off until it has the full allocation for next year, although it seems clear that it will have an underspend—indeed, its current level of spending is much less that some of its neighbours which are still allocating grants. There are plenty of other local authorities in the same position.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about our record on housing. Local authorities—most of them are dominated by the Labour Party—are estimated to be underspending in the current year up to £80 million of the money available for housing. If the right hon. Gentleman really feels that there is a housing need—I agree with him—I hope that he will encourage local authorities throughout Wales to spend the money that the Government have made available.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the proportions of unallocated receipts and about the formal amounts allocated. In the current year, we originally estimated that receipts for local authorities sales would amount to £58 million. Our latest estimate is £97 million, and for next year we are currently estimating £85 million.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the scale of the housing work and the effect that it might have on current expenditure and on interest charges. I make no apology for saying that, in the light of the known housing need in Wales, local authorities should spend the money on this priority, and I do not believe that there is any justification in their present expenditure to exceed targets as a result.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the rent increase next year of 85p. He will be aware that the Labour Government took the view that rent levels should rise in line with increases in inflation but never did anything about it. This increase is broadly in line with inflation and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are increasing the local contribution which effects, of course, the local authority grant position, but local authorities are free to make individual decisions on rents in their own areas.


The right hon. Gentleman referred to personal social services and to other matters. I said in my statement that there is a block allocation to each local authority and that the local authority, within that total, and subject to the limitation that I have introduced about housing receipts, is free to spend the money in the ways that it thinks best. I have no immediate control over the way it does it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about jointly funded schemes. I shall elaborate on that subject in the Welsh Grand Committee tomorrow.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the right hon. Gentleman's detailed points.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a warm welcome in Wales for what he has announced and that hope will be rekindled in many quarters? Does he recognise that the capital works schemes on which he has placed so much emphasis are certainly the best way of creating employment without producing too many inflationary pressures? Will he ensure that his fairly complex arrangements are fully and clearly explained to local authorities so that there is no misunderstanding on their part about exactly how much they have available to spend and on what? In the past, there has undoubtedly been misunderstanding about the moneys available from the sale of council housing. This misunderstanding has had adverse effects on some authorities, especially Rhuddlan borough council.

Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The simplest form of clarification is that on the first half-yearly figures we could be faced with a capital underspend in Wales of £93 million, including the £80 million in respect of housing to which I have referred. On the most optimistic estimate, we could be faced with a total underspend of about £69 million. These figures show that there is a great deal of capital available within existing cash limits and within the Government's overall strategy to provide for the need that everyone acknowledges and to give a real boost to the construction industry. It is now up to local government to do its job.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the large increase in the number of people on the Cardiff housing waiting list? Is there any prospect that the increases that he has announced today will reduce waiting lists to the levels at which they stood when he began his stewardship?

Mr. Edwards: If the Cardiff authority was as energetic in its disposal of housing stock as other authorities, it would be able to provide a great deal of new housing for the right hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. John Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel occasionally like the Grand Old Duke of York in that, having marched his bewildered local authority troops up the hill, he is now marching them down again? Will he make a statement comparable with that made by the Secretary of State for the Environment at the Tory Party conference, when he responded to the great anger about the proposals on the size of lorries by promising 55 new bypasses in England? Will there be comparable provision or a comparable promise for Wales?

Mr. Edwards: We are dealing with a statement on housing and local authority capital expenditure. I shall be

announcing a substantial road programme on another occasion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about the Grand Old Duke of York, but I recall that when he was the Secretary of State for Wales he, too, was faced with an underspend. I am merely repeating the actions that he took when he had the same experience. He, too, had difficulty in getting local authorities to spend the money that the Government had made available to them.

Mr. Ian Grist: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last Saturday a married couple visited my surgery to tell me that they had applied 18 months ago to buy their flat in Cardiff from the council and that they had not received any offer, visit or notification? This waste of potential money for the Cardiff council is delaying the necessary programme of renovation of the housing stock, most of which was erected 70, 80 or 90 years ago and is in bad need of renovation. The programme that my right hon. Friend has announced will be extremely welcome to the people of Cardiff and by most of those living in the valleys of South Wales.

Mr. Edwards: The situation that my hon. Friend described is indefensible. It is penalising those who wish to buy their flats or houses and those who could have new authority housing built for them, or their existing housing improved, if the local authority got on with its job and spent the money that could be available to them.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making a statement so early in the new Session. Will he give an assurance that the £3·58 million that he has allocated for urban programme schemes will not be clawed back from rural programme schemes? Will he give a further breakdown of the £42·163 million that is to be provided for all other services?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot give the breakdown that the hon. Gentleman requests. I allocate a total block to the local authorities. The Government merely indicate the way in which the block has been made up. It is for individual authorities to decide how much they spend on certain items.
The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the urban programme. This year I allocated originally £15·3 million to the programme. Additional amounts were made available during the year and the total was increased to £16·.8 million. I have now allocated slightly more than £21 million to the urban programme and the UDG schemes combined. I have not yet decided the make-up of that sum. I have to consider the 50 or more UDG schemes that have been submitted by local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that if we get investment in UDG schemes we multiply the scale of the capital investment. We may get a multiplier effect of four by getting private sector investment in addition to the public sector contribution.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will it be possible in future, bearing in mind the complex nature of the statement, to publish a statement and to follow it up shortly afterwards with a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee so that we can go into some aspects in greater depth?
The right hon. Gentleman has talked about proven housing need. Was there not that need three years ago when the Government chopped the housing allocation in Wales by 48 per cent? Surely it is extremely difficult for local authorities to deal with changing programmes. Their staffing is geared up to meet a programme, there is a strong


surge forward in an election year and then there is a programme of cuts immediately afterwards. Can we not achieve some stability in the housing programme in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: If I had presented the House with a written statement and announced a subsequent debate, the hon. Gentleman would have been one of the first to criticise me for not making an oral statement.
We are not dealing with a new development. We announced our intentions in respect of the availability of capital receipts when we started disposing of local authority housing under new legislation. Much earlier in the year we gave assurances and guarantees to local government which should have enabled them to go ahead and plan into next year on the basis of stability. We are now giving them a further assurance that they are not dealing with a one-year programme. There is no excuse for the current massive underspend of local government when it is the first to say that there is considerable housing need.

Mr. Roy Hughes: When the right hon. Gentleman replied to the questions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) he said that the recently announced rent increases for council tenants were reasonable. Has he considered the tremendous unemployment in Wales, let alone short-time working, and the effect that it is having on rent arrears? What is he doing to help Welsh authorities? The Newport authority is facing much trouble because of these difficulties.

Mr. Edwards: Bearing in mind the emphasis on capital need and the state of the housing stock in Wales, it is not unreasonable to ask local authorities to increase rents broadly in line with the increase in costs. We shall be increasing maintenance and management expenditure by 7 per cent., which on the current inflation forecast means that there will be an additional margin for local authorities that will allow them to catch up with an admitted backlog of maintenance work.

Mr. Tom Ellis: To what extent would the insistence of a local authority, such as that of the Wrexham Maelor borough council, on having complete management control of an enterprise zone in its area influence the right hon. Gentleman in deciding whether to allocate a zone to such an authority?

Mr. Edwards: I have to bear in mind a number of factors in determining the siting of an enterprise zone, not least its potential success and the effect on other developments in the area. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that to place an enterprise zone immediately adjacent to a large industrially developed site, for example, could have an impact on that site. That is one consideration that has to be taken into account. We are having further discussions with local authorities that have applied for enterprise zones before ascertaining which we should select as the third site in Wales.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the Secretary of State realise that his announcement will be considered cynically by Welsh local authorities? Since he became Secretary of State he has told local authorities to cut, cut, cut. Now, in the run-up to an election, he is telling them to spend, spend, spend. What effect will that have on Wales, if there is current expenditure as well as capital expenditure, and how will it benefit total public expenditure? He mentioned the local authority part. Will

the Secretary of State now divert resources from the Health Service or from other sectors or will there be an all-round increase in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will get in part an answer to the latter point in the Welsh Grand Committee tomorrow when we shall debate health matters.
I am not changing Government policy suddenly and asking for expenditure of money not previously available. I am merely emphasising the point that local authorities are not spending the money that has always been available to them. That does not represent a similar "spend, spend, spend" policy before a general election to that initiated by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) before he had to change direction when the International Monetary Fund moved in. We are asking local authorities to spend the money that has always been available and that they have not spent up to now.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Although I welcome the new priority given to housing, will the Secretary of State confirm that the total sums available to Welsh housing authorities in the financial year 1983–84 are no higher than those available in 1979–80, the last year of the Labour Government, and that he has presided over the greatest slump in house building in Wales since the Second World War, with only 1,000 starts in the public sector in 1981–82?
On a technical point, local authorities are allowed to top up their allocations by the totality of capital receipts available to them—with the exception of housing which is only 50 per cent.—but the Secretary of State announced recently that the top-up will be reduced to 50 per cent. in other sectors. Is not that change inconsistent with today's statement, and will the Secretary of State withdraw the reduction from 100 per cent. to 50 per cent?

Mr. Edwards: A shortfall in the housing programme must be entirely the responsibility of the local authorities, mostly Labour-controlled, which have not spent the money made available to them by the Government. If the hon. Gentleman re-reads my admittedly complicated statement, he will see that the allocation of capital receipts has been made perfectly clear.
Following is the table:


Capital Expenditure Allocation 1983–84



L.A. Code
£000's


Counties:


Clwyd
38
11,785


Dyfed
39
10,905


Gwent
40
24,234


Gwynedd
41
7,015


Mid-Glamorgan
42
16,919


Powys
43
4,626


South Glamorgan
44
18,821


West Glamorgan
45
11,949


Total Counties
47
106,254


Districts:


Alyn and Deeside
01
3,254


Colwyn
02
3,077


Delyn
03
3,211


Glyndwr
04
1,987


Rhudllan
05
2,597


Wrexham Maelor
06
4,620


Carmarthen
07
4,293


Ceredigion
08
3,730


Dinefwr
09
1,619


Llanelli
10
4,318


Preseli
11
2,706


South Pembroke
12
2,668







L.A. Code
£000's


Blaenau Gwent
13
7,930


Islwyn
14
5,254


Monmouth
15
3,493


Newport
16
8,791


Torfaen
17
4,991


Aberconwy
18
2,390


Arfon
19
3,530


Dwyfor
20
1,360


Meirionnydd
21
3,170


Ynys Mon
22
3,799


Cynon Valley
23
3,989


Merthyr Tydfil
24
4,314


Ogwr
25
7,151


Rhondda
26
6,949


Rhymney Valley
27
6,118


Taff-Ely
28
7,103


Brecknock
29
1,796


Montgomery
30
1,907


Radnor
31
1,385


Cardiff
32
20,376


Vale of Glamorgan
33
5,569


Afan
34
2,409


Lliw Valley
35
4,402


Neath
36
2,999


Swansea
37
16,658


Total Districts
46
175,943


Total Wales
48
282,197

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of this point of order, but as I was involved with the steel lobby I could not do so. I resisted the temptation to raise a point of order following the statement last week by the Secretary of State for the Environment, because I was not sure what the Welsh Office intended to do. We had a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment on his local authority spending programmes and we have today had a statement from the Secretary of State for Wales on his local authority spending programmes. However, the matter was dealt with by the most junior Minister at the Scottish Office at a press conference some days ago.
The Secretary of State for Scotland is deliberately avoiding his responsibilities to the House and in the process, and most importantly, he is denying Scottish Members of Parliament the opportunity, as was given to Welsh and English hon. Members, to ask questions on a statement. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will see that as a serious restriction on the ability of Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies to carry out their parliamentary duties. If you see it in that way, Mr. Speaker, I hope that in your capacity as Speaker you will make representations to the appropriate quarter in the Government to ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland has the courage to make a statement on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) to make his point of order at length, but he will realise that the matter is one for the usual channels and not for me.

CONWY TUNNEL (SUPPLEMENTARY POWERS) BILL

Ordered,
That the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Edwards.]

Orders of the Day — Housing and Building Control Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the Instruction.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When I moved the Second Reading of the Housing Bill in January 1980, I explained that it had two main objectives. The first was to give people an opportunity to fulfil their aspirations to own their own homes and the second was to reverse the trend of ever-increasing dominance of the State over the life of the individual. Those objectives infuse our housing policy. This Bill is a further stage in meeting both objectives.
Our housing policy has evolved against the background of economic stringency. After three years of financial discipline we are beginning to see the benefits. We have started to redress the imbalance between current and capital expenditure. Last week I announced to the House increases in some capital programmes, especially in housing. I have requested local authorities to increase their capital programmes for the current year to spend closer to the national provision. Authorities that need them have been offered extra capital allocations. All authorities can spend without limit on home improvement grants this year. I have agreed an increase of £150 million on the Housing Corporation's cash limit for the current year. For next year, 1983–84, the gross capital provision for housing will be increased. The provision will be some £340 million above the expected outturn for the current year, taking account of extra spend from last week's statement.
Housing starts are now showing clear signs of improvement. In the public sector starts in the third quarter of 1982 are 36 per cent. up on the equivalent period a year ago. By September, public sector starts this year had already exceeded the total for the whole of 1981. A similar picture emerges in the private sector. Starts in the third quarter are 23 per cent. up on last year.
In addition, there has been a revolution in the ways in which local authorities have started to make more effective use of the moneys available. They are now bringing in private finance through a range of joint initiatives and have been especially effective in opening new opportunities for home ownership in the low-cost sector of the market.
There is now a wide variety of schemes, that widen choice and opportunity, especially for households on lower incomes. We have promoted shared ownership, buying part of a house and renting the rest with the option of outright purchase in due course. We have produced a model scheme and are preparing a model lease. The Bill that we are discussing today gives a right to a shared ownership lease to tenants who cannot afford to buy their homes outright at once. We have encouraged homesteading, giving the chance to buy rundown property at rock bottom prices to those willing to put major effort into improving their homes. Co-operation among house builders, local authorities and mortgage lenders has


produced sites for starter homes, often in the inner cities, and building for sale schemes under licence on local authority land.
We have enabled local authorities and housing associations to buy, improve and sell properties in poor condition, producing exceptional housing value for a relatively small amount of public expenditure. In the Housing Act 1980 local authorities and the Housing Corporation were given a new power to guarantee building society mortgages to help those buying the cheapest older homes. In all these ways, as well as through council house sales, we have extended the opportunities open to thousands of families. This has been achieved through an extension of partnership between the public and private sectors.
Many local authorities responded constructively. There is a new realisation that building more and more estates of housing for rent is not the answer for the 1980s and beyond. It is simply not what people want, it is not necessary and virtually everyone except the Opposition Front Bench now recognises that.
Much of our effort has been directed at improving the quality of life on local authority estates. For those who wish to remain as tenants, we have enacted a charter giving formal security of tenure, a right to improve, a right to take in lodgers and sub-let, a right to be consulted about management changes and a right to information. With local authority co-operation, we have pioneered experiments such as the priority estates project and the community refurbishment schemes. A concentrated effort is being made to consult and involve the tenants, to make management local and accountable, to carry out the repairs and improvements that people actually want, to clear away rubbish and to improve physical security and policing. Too many tenants have been denied the freedoms that much of the rest of community takes for granted.
At Cantril Farm in Knowsley we are proposing an even bolder experiment for a bleak and rundown estate of over 3,000 houses. It is proposed that the estate be taken over by a private trust involving the local authority, the tenants, the Abbey National building society and Barclays bank. Substantial amounts of private finance will be combined with public sector resources and devoted to the refurbishment of that estate. There would be a partnership between the Department, the local council, the Housing Corporation and the new trust. I am pleased to say that the tenants' first reaction has been enthusiastic. Full consultations are now in progress and work should begin early in the new year. Indeed, it is one of the curiosities of the political scene that in Liverpool the Labour Party is pressing the local authority to transfer its tenants in properties on the edge of Cantril Farm estate to the substantial experiment that I have described.
A central objective remains to enable as many people as possible to become home owners. Since the Government took office tenants have fulfilled this ambition to a remarkable degree. More than 400,000 public sector dwellings have been bought by tenants since April 1979 and about 200,000 applications are in the pipeline. It must be realistic to say that about 1 million people are now living in homes that they have been able to buy only because of the Government's legislation.
Four thousand tenants are completing the purchase of their homes every week under the right to buy. This is perhaps the most massive redistribution of wealth and property ownership by any standards that the working

people of this country have ever seen. I cannot recall any similar example of a Government transferring wealth back to the community on so wide a scale, and so often to families who previously had little or no prospect of ever owning their own homes.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's statement only a week ago will he confirm that between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the 2 million people involved have bought their homes by voluntary negotiation rather than under the statutory rights provided by the Act to which he has referred?

Mr. Heseltine: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, many Conservative-controlled local authorities have been selling their council houses for a significant period. It was only late in their period of office that the Labour Government sought to constrain local authorities' ability to do that. Nevertheless, under this Government the programme has been dramatically accelerated and we have fulfilled our obligations in the manifesto on which we were elected.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The Secretary of State has referred to a great transfer of wealth to the ordinary people. Does he accept that that has been paid for by all the other council tenants, so there is no benefit to council tenants? The reason for the right hon. Gentleman's success is that he has forced councils to give a discount of 50 per cent. That is now being paid for by all the council tenants who cannot afford to buy their own homes.

Mr. Heseltine: I know that the hon. Gentleman disapproves of the sale of council houses. No doubt the Labour Party will wish to make it clear in their next general election manifesto that under a Labour Government council tenants will lose the right to buy their homes. As a former shadow spokesman, my principal reason for seeking to persuade my party to adopt the terms that the hon. Gentleman now criticises was to recognise the fact that those who had bought freehold homes in postwar Britain had gained immeasurably from the inflationary pressures that existed in society. Discounts to council tenants were thus some compensation for the fact that they have lost so dramatically through remaining tenants.
The figures are their own most eloquent testimony. In the first part of this year, applications under the right to buy were approaching a rate of 200,000 per annum. In Birmingham, between May, when a Conservative council took office, and the end of October, new right-to-buy applications have come in at a rate of more than 1,000 per month, taking the total from 5,000 to more than 12,000. It must now be beyond political question that the Labour Party's hostility to the enfranchisement of council tenants is one of the great political misjudgments of our time.
The Bill furthers opportunities for home ownership. It also increases the role of the private sector in the sphere of building regulations.

Mr. David Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the right of tenants to buy their own homes. We shall argue about that again today, but the right hon. Gentleman would clearly have us believe that it is some kind of fundamental right. If that is so, why were private tenants excluded from the Act and from the Bill now before us? Why should they not have the same rights in law as the Government have conferred upon council tenants and now seek to give to tenants of housing associations?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer very well. As the Government are responsible for the disposition of the public sector, we were entitled to be elected on a manifesto stating that we would use some of those public resources in the way that we felt would benefit the tenants. It would have been quite wrong to suggest that we could deal with the private assets of individual citizens in the same way. However, if the Labour Party now intends to enable private tenants to acquire the privately owned property of other people, let us have that clearly on the record.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Secretary of State regard the housing association movement as part of the public sector? As Richard Best, director of the National Federation of Housing Associations, has said, in the past that movement has had charitable status and a great deal of charitable money has been poured into it. That makes it different from the public rented sector. Why, then, is the Secretary of State trying to force the housing associations to sell that property?

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I think that I can satisfy him about the proposals relating to housing associations. I shall explain precisely the distinctions that I regard as important. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but the Bill anticipates it and there are no grounds for further anxiety arising out of our proposals. Nevertheless, I shall return to that point in detail.
As the House knows, some important groups of tenants have remained outside the right to buy and others within it have been unable to afford to buy outright. Part I of the Bill is aimed at them. It also makes a number of changes to the 1980 Act which will help to strengthen the position of tenants seeking to exercise their rights.
Clause 1 extends the right to buy to tenants of local authorities, new towns and housing associations whose landlord does not own the freehold of their homes. Those tenants, providing they qualify in other respects, will be given the right to purchase a long lease of their homes, subject to the landlord's own outstanding interest being not less than 22 years in the case of houses and 50 years in the case of flats. Tenants living in houses, as opposed to flats, who purchase a long lease in that way will also be able to buy their freeholds subsequently if they qualify under the normal leasehold enfranchisement provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. It is because those provisions do not apply to fiats that we are providing for a 50-year minimum for flats so that tenants get a marketable asset. This clause gives effect to a long-standing Government commitment. There are perhaps 50,000 tenants who are currently outside the right to buy because their dwellings are leasehold property. There is no justification for their exclusion.
It has been open to councils to sell such property on voluntary terms, but not all authorities have shown fairness in the treatment of tenants who wish to buy their homes. That is why we are legislating.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has left the Chamber, but I am sure that he will have a chance to read Hansard. None of us doubts that inevitably he will be back, anyway until the next election.
The main purpose of clause 2 is to confer the right to buy on tenants of charitable housing associations and trusts living in dwellings provided wholly or substantially with

public funds. Tenants of non-charitable associations, other than co-ownerships and associations which have not received Exchequer subsidy, already have the right to buy under the Housing Act 1980. This clause now extends the right to buy to tenants of charitable associations and trusts whose homes were provided with housing association grant.
Charitable dwellings provided with the benefit of other forms of subsidy, which include all dwellings provided before the enactment of the Housing Act 1974, or with charitable funds, will not be affected, even if they have subsequently been improved or repaired with grant. Nor will dwellings built with grant on land provided by a charity attract the right to buy. That deals with the query of the hon. Member for Bootle.
This clause extends the right to buy to about 80,000 tenants—about a quarter of the tenants of charitable associations in England and Wales. It is an extension of the right to buy to a group of tenants occupying dwellings which, having been provided with public money, are directly comparable with the housing stock of local authorities and non-charitable associations which is already subject to the right to buy.
I have received a number of letters in the past year from tenants of charities who would dearly like to be able to own their own homes. They see the right to buy as the only opportunity that they are ever likely to get. Those whose homes were publicly funded believe it is unfair to be denied the right to buy. We are correcting that unfairness.
The third major extension of the right to buy is the creation of a new right to shared ownership. That is dealt with in clauses 9 to 16 and schedule 5. Clause 9 provides that all tenants who have the right to buy, but whose mortgage entitlement does not enable them to buy, can opt instead for purchase on shared ownership terms. Shared ownership is a concept that is steadily gaining ground. Tenants will be given the opportunity to part-buy and part-rent their homes. They can buy the part they can afford and continue to rent the part that they cannot afford to buy.
The Bill provides for an initial share of not less than 50 per cent., with the right to progress to full ownership at any time by buying additional shares in 12½ per cent. slices. The purchaser gets discount pro rata on his initial purchase, and again on his purchase of subsequent tranches. He continues to pay rent on the share of the dwelling which remains with the landlord—but with a reduction to take account of the fact that the shared owner is himself responsible for repairs from the time of the purchase of his initial share.
That option will appeal to many thousands of tenants who cannot see their way to buying outright at once. It is important for tenants to get on to the first rung of the home ownership ladder from the start, but with the opportunity to ease into the full financial commitment over the years as resources allow.
The Bill thus achieves three main extensions of the right to buy. Other provisions will assist those seeking to exercise their rights by removing uncertainties and anomalies and by dealing with obstacles that a minority of landlords have used to try to frustrate tenants' rights.
New protection for tenants against unreasonable use of completion notices by landlords is given. Purchasers of houses who have to pay service charges are to be given the same rights of challenge as purchasers of flats already have under schedule 19 to the 1980 Act. That is needed as a few councils have imposed charges for so-called estate services


in a totally open-ended fashion, claiming payment for facilities such as meeting halls and laundries. We are also stopping the loophole whereby tenants are deprived of their right to buy by being required to exchange tenancies by mutual assignment. These provisions are evidence of our determination to deliver to tenants the rights granted them by Parliament.
When the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) speaks I hope that she will take the opportunity to explain to any authority, of whatever party, seeking to impose niggling obstructions to deny people the chance of a lifetime, that that is not in compliance with her political party, and that she condemns strongly such practices. I believe that there are a number of tenants all over the country who feel that there are authorities who are seeking ways to frustrate their right to buy. It would be immensely helpful if the Labour Party, at national level, would condemn those practices unconditionally.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while we are discussing an important Bill which deals with so many rights of tenants and other people, there are fewer than 10 Opposition Members in the House? They spend their time knocking the Government for raising important issues.

Mr. Ted Graham: There are only 11 Members on the Government Back Benches.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that many people will read what I have said, and its innate wisdom will be carried to a wider audience than those hon. Members present in the Chamber today. The good news will reach a large number of council tenants who will benefit.

Mr. John Cartwright: The Secretary of State said that those people buying houses would have the same right of challenge as those people who are buying flats, with regard to service charges. Flat dwellers in my constituency have found that right to be ineffective. It involves court action, and it is not a practical proposition for a council tenant to take court action against a major local authority to deal with unreasonable service charges. Is the Secretary of State convinced that he is giving practical protection?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises a difficult issue. The House can only make a determination based on a policy commitment and steer legislation through the parliamentary processes to the statute book. If local authorities, for whatever reason, seek to frustrate that legislation there is always the possibility that they will succeed temporarily. The Minister for Housing and Construction has done a valiant job in scrutinising a significant number of protests that have flowed from certain local authorities. By and large, the right to buy is being implemented now with enthusiasm and expedition.
If an authority is abusing the purpose of legislation, for which Parliament gave its approval, it will be the duty of the Department of the Environment to listen to representations and do everything it possibly can to ensure that those council tenants get their rights. I dare say that we shall also have to explain if any one political party tries to introduce a political motivation into the interpretation of the statutory duties. If the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) will give us details we shall consider carefully what we can do best to help.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Are not many Conservative-controlled local authorities selling fewer council houses than some Labour authorities that are on the Secretary of State's hit list for not selling enough? For example, Blackpool is selling far fewer than Burnley, yet Burnley is under pressure from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to complain about a particular authority, or if he knows of tenants who wish to complain, we shall look at each case dispassionately. All I know is that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has devoted himself to the closest scrutiny of these matters and I have been involved where appropriate. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can argue that the Labour Party is exactly blameless in respect of matters that are now causing him concern.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the city of Lancaster has always led the way in selling council houses, and managed to do so even when the Labour Government were in office?

Mr. Heseltine: I have always borne that very much in mind.
I have outlined the housing content of the legislation. Its provisions are evidence of our determination to deliver to tenants the rights granted them by Parliament. I shall continue to protect those rights, if necessary by using again my powers of intervention.
Parts II and III relate to building control. The present system is far from ideal. Builders complain of the delays and costs which it imposes. Designers object to the limits that are imposed. Industry and commerce complain that it stifles development. That is not surprising, as the system has gradually grown up from controls imposed a century or more ago under local authority byelaws into a national system of great complexity. We now have the opportunity to make radical changes. The aim was set out in the White Paper published in February 1981. There has been intense discussion and consultation since that time, and the Bill will enable us to simplify the regulations.
The first objective of this part of the Bill is to provide an opportunity for the industry to achieve greater self-regulation through a system of private certification of compliance with the building regulations. This will be an optional alternative available to builders and developers. They will still be able to have their buildings supervised by local authorities if they wish.
The second objective is to provide for the approval of technical documents giving practical guidance on compliance with the building regulations. This will make it possible for the regulations themselves to be simpler and for them to be kept up to date more easily.
For private certification, the Bill sets out a legal framework enabling approved inspectors to supervise building work. Many of the detailed arrangements will be dealt with by regulations at a later stage.
The Bill provides for a developer and an approved inspector jointly to serve a notice on a local authority to the effect that the approved inspector—in other words, the certifier—will supervise the particular work. The notice will have to be accompanied by plans which will enable a local authority to carry out its other functions under the Public Health Acts. It will also have to be accompanied by evidence of insurance cover. If the notice is in order,


the local authority in that case will be obliged to accept that its duty to enforce the building regulations will be suspended, and the responsibility will rest with the certifier.
Certifiers will be approved by the Secretary of State or by bodies designated by him, such as professional institutions. Approval can be restricted to particular types of buildings, depending on professional qualifications and experience. In future, public bodies approved by the Secretary of State will certify their own work, if they wish to, under the arrangements on the lines of those for private certification. It cannot be necessary to require bodies such as the Civil Aviation Authority to have their own work supervised by local authorities.
Local authorities are also exempted from the procedural requirements of the regulations. They will be required to comply with the substantive regulations and will be trusted to do so. In no way are we lowering the standards, which will be maintained at a consistently high level nationally. It is the method by which we establish that the standards are complied with that is affected by the legislation.
The Secretary of State will be empowered to approve documents from any source which offers suitable practical guidance on how to comply with the regulations. He is also able to delegate his powers in this respect, through an order laid before both Houses, to a body that he designates.

Mr. Stephen Ross: One-man architect and surveyor businesses have expressed concern that they may lose business because of this provision, which personally I do not object to, in that they will be unable to get insurance cover, which is likely to be substantial. They fear that they will lose clients who wish to do their own certification. It is a job that small companies may be unable to undertake because of the expense involved in insurance cover.

Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that this is a practical problem, because this sort of work even today is not open to the private sector. I expect that the large and skilled professional firms will become involved in the certification process. After all, they already play a significant role in the advice that they give to local authorities. A local authority may not have the professional competence to administer a complex scheme in its area on a once-and-for-all basis and may have to seek advice from professional private sector firms in those circumstances. That sort of pattern is more likely to develop. I doubt whether the work load of small design businesses will be affected by what we are proposing.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he is helping or hindering the work of the housing associations? He must know that the National Federation of Housing Associations is opposed to the Bill. Is he aware that the Sutton housing trust, whose work in my constituency has been highly regarded, has said that its houses, which in many cases will be sold under the Bill, will no longer be available for renting by those who cannot afford to buy even on shared ownership terms? It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is offending people who are trying to provide better housing.

Mr. Heseltime: I am prepared to accept that I am offending the hon. Gentleman, and I accept his motivation

to try to provide better housing. However, if he gets out into the real world and looks at what has happened as a result of the policies in which he believes, he will understand that the people he represents simply will not believe in the theories that he propounds. The fascinating thing about the right to buy movement is how a social revolution in housing expectations is now taking place in the inner cities. The only group that persistently cannot see it is the Labour Party. The people on council waiting lists and local authority tenants willingly and enthusiastically embrace what is going on.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Not people on the waiting lists.

Mr. Heseltine: Yes. The hon. Lady ought to visit Newham, where for years Labour authorities have denied the private sector the opportunity to develop houses for sale. When the private sector, under the London Docklands Corporation, began to develop houses for sale in Newham in the East End of London, 40 per cent. of those houses went to local authority tenants or people on the waiting lists. Those very people, under the normal regime of total Socialist suffocation, would have been forced out of the inner city areas to the suburbs where they then could have bought.
The Labour Party, in its own best interests, must wake up to the dramatic change that is taking place. Local Labour councillors are aware of that change and appreciate the gap in thinking that exists between the Labour Party at local and national level.

Mr. John Ward: My right hon. Friend is being too modest. Is not the only way to make funds available to those in real need of council housing to sell council houses? The money will certainly not be available if people who can afford to buy are sitting on council property and not releasing funds that should be used for those in real need.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows that the Opposition, when in Government, cut local government's capital spending programmes in half. They took £3,500 million off housing and other local government capital programmes in their last four years in office. All Opposition Members went through the Lobby in support of that policy. They know full well that when in power they cut the programmes to ribbons. We are finding alternative sources of finance that are beginning to reverse the decline that we inherited.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Would my right hon. Friend care to remind the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that additional funds have been made available to the Housing Corporation for the construction of new properties and the refurbishment of old ones and that that will help to replace many of the properties that will be sold under these provisions?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to remind me of the other £150 million for the Housing Corporation that I was able to announce last week. That is a manifestation of the fact that we have increased the funds of the Housing Corporation to the highest level, in cash terms, than ever before. We are completely behind the provision of a wide range of choice in inner city and housing policies. We utterly oppose any segregation that says for large parts of, usually Labour-controlled, Britain, "You will be a tenant of the local authority only if you want to stay here." In


those circumstances, people do not stay and those who are left behind are increasingly those who are less able to look after themselves.

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have given way a great deal.
The Bill is an extension of the initial right-to-buy legislaton that has had a profound effect on the fortunes of British working people. It has brought about a major shift of commitment and wealth in their direction. It carries through the objectives on which we were elected to ensure that there is a real choice for those who live in urban areas or on council estates.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Secretary of State has confirmed that the Bill contains no new Government thinking. Indeed, it is more evidence of the Government's continued dogmatic and blinkered approach to Britain's housing problems. The Opposition resent the fact that parliamentary time is being spent on such irrelevant measures when Britain's housing problem is reaching crisis proportions.
As the Minister said, the first part of the Bill is simply an extension of the right to buy. It is an extension of the Government's belief that the only way in which to deal with council housing is to sell it. First, they forced local authorities to sell to those who could afford to buy. Now that bonanza is coming to an end, they want to force councils to sell to those who cannot afford to buy. The right to shared ownership is designed for those who can afford to buy only half a council house.
Such is the Conservative Party's zeal for owner-occupation that, not content with giving the right to buy to tenants of property in the public sector, they want to extend that right to tenants of charitable bodies. The Secretary of State did not make it clear whether he intends to follow through the logic of that argument in the Conservative Party's next manifesto. Will he extend that right to tenants of property in the private sector?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend made that point clear.

Mrs. Taylor: He said that it was not in his party's previous manifesto. We look forward to seeing whether he carries the logic of his actions through and whether it is included in the next Conservative Party manifesto.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady cannot have been listening. My right hon. Friend's words were that it is not proper for us to deal with private assets.

Mrs. Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Lady will read in Hansard that part of the Secretary of State's speech which refers to the Conservative Party's manifesto. The Opposition look forward to seeing whether the Secretary of State carries through the logic of his argument and extends the right to buy, with discounts, to tenants in the private sector.
The second part of the Bill deals with privatisation. Indeed, it is privatisation at its silliest. The Minister did not begin to justify the proposed building regulations changes. I doubt whether any one who listened to the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State himself has any

idea of the way in which those changes will work in practice. The Bill is so vague in this respect as to leave everyone in the dark about how the new regulations will operate.
The Secretary of State has not been able to show that the high level of public safety that has been achieved under the existing system will be maintained. That is an essential factor in any change. He should not leave the House in any doubt. The new system may lead to public safety problems that he did not discuss or go into any detail about.

Mr. Shersby: Would the hon. Lady clarify what she means by "public safety problems"? Is she suggesting that tenants who buy their homes through an equity sharing scheme are less able than a local authority to maintain the safety of their dwelling?

Mrs. Taylor: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman listens more carefully. I was talking about building regulations. I shall go into that matter in more detail later.
The Secretary of State dwelt on the right-to-buy aspects of the Bill. There is no doubt in his mind that the right to buy has been something of a success. He is nodding his head; he agrees. He believes that it is a success because there are now far fewer council houses than there were three years ago. Neither homeless people nor those on council house waiting lists regard it as a Government success.
The original enthusiasm of the Government's sales policy has worn off. That is why we have been presented with the Bill. It is intended to give another artificial stimulus to council house sales so that their total will reach the Government's magic figure of 500,000. That is why the right to shared ownership is being introduced.
The Secretary of State mentioned what he considers are some of the advantages of shared ownership. There are also many problems that he conveniently forgot to tell us about. With regard to the tenant, there is the disadvantage that, although he has only a 50 per cent. stake in his home, he must be fully responsible for repairs. For the local authority's part, there is a considerable additional administrative burden when the Secretary of State is placing further pressure on local authorities to reduce staff. The sale of a 50 per cent. share in a house will involve more work for the local authority than selling it outright and the cost of collecting half the rent will be no less than the cost of collecting the full rent.
Many questions remain to be answered about the way in which shared ownership will operate. We should be told more about the implications for the tenant, whose status needs to be defined more clearly. We must ask what will happen if the tenant-buyer gets into arrears with his rent or mortgage, or both. Many people who are buying their council houses are finding it difficult to meet their mortgage repayments. We need to know what will happen to inheritors of shared ownership dwellings or what will happen in the event of a marriage breakdown.
Although shared ownership has existed voluntarily in the public sector in a few places, sales under shared ownership schemes are numbered in hundreds rather than in thousands. The experience is limited in the private sector and housing associations.
Even the present Secretary of State should consider whether it is wise to force shared ownership on the public sector as a right when so many problems that have not yet been resolved still loom. We have not come to expect a


great deal of wisdom from the Secretary of State. We know that he will do anything to boost the sales of council houses and those in the public sector while he still has a chance—however long that may be. That is one aspect that we shall oppose and that we shall want to examine in great detail in Committee.
The other extension of the right to buy—to tenants in properties where the landlord does not own the freehold—will also have to be examined. At the time of the Housing Act 1980 the Government thought it better to leave alone this type of dwelling. The Secretary of State has proved today that Ministers in his Department not only fail to learn anything but that they forget even what they do know. They will force even more problems on local authorities and housing associations which may have to fulfil obligations to the freeholder, for example, over the state of repair of the property. It is one more example of another problem glibly thrown on to the local authorities by the Secretary of State who will then berate them for employing staff to sort out the difficulties.
The measures proposed by the Secretary of State with regard to the extension of the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations and trusts is important. It should concern all those who are involved in charitable work. Few people can devote time and energy to their particular charity in the hope that the beneficiaries of that work are the lucky few affected by the Bill. Never before can any Government have proposed such a diversion of voluntary charitable work into private gain. I should have thought that the Charity Commissioners would have something to say about the matter in due course.
The Government are saying that properties acquired or built after 1974 with housing association grants are subject to the right to buy. We are not, however, discussing public property.

Mr. John Heddle: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Housing Corporation funds are taxpayers' funds—in other words, public money?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The money that the housing associations get is taxpayers' money. The money that the housing associations pay back to the Government accrues to the taxpayer. The property we are discussing is not public property. Public money goes into it and the housing associations repay that money. It is not public money. If the Secretary of State wishes to give the House a new definition of public property, I wonder whether he will include those properties to which improvement grants have been given. Also, are private landlords who receive improvement grants to come under the definition of public property? If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to redefine public property, hon. Members would be interested to hear him.
The proposed legislation cuts across all the provisions of the charitable housing trusts and attacks the basis on which many charities were founded. It forces these charities to sell at a discount. It takes no account of the overall interest or the basic reason for the existence of the charity itself. By interfering in the manner in which charities operate, the Government have created a dangerous precedent, and a legally complex problem which should concern even Conservative Members.
I hope that the Government realise—although I doubt it after hearing the Secretary of State—the alarm that the

proposals are causing among those who work in charities. They are only just waking up to the dramatic effect of the proposals in the Bill. Only this morning I received three letters from different charities. One says of the Bill:
This is contrary to natural justice and cuts clean across charity law. I can tell you plainly that we are fiercely opposed to this notion of compulsory sales which cuts clean across our independence and the responsibility of the trustees".
Another letter from the Sutton housing trust points out that the associations concerned will have contributed substantial charitable effort and in some cases charitable funds. These are the groups now attacked by the Secretary of State and told that they must sell off their assets regardless of the impact on their ability to deal with housing problems.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Would the hon. Lady be interested to know that the Sutton housing trust owns houses in my constituency, that my constituents have tried to purchase houses from the trust and that the trust has refused and will not enter into negotiations? Is she aware that this prevents tenants from purchasing the houses in which they live?

Mrs. Taylor: There are also Sutton trust houses in my constituency. They exist for people on low incomes. It is right that the Sutton trust should refuse to sell those houses. I am sure that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as in mine, there are long waiting lists of people on low incomes who would dearly like to live in a Sutton trust property.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Does the hon. Lady agree that ordinary council housing is also designed for people on low incomes?

Mr. Allan Roberts: Not any more.

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) makes that point. One would think from listening to the Secretary of State that council housing was designed to be sold at a fantastic discount to those who could afford to buy. Ministers and Conservative Members do not normally take sufficient account of those whom the hon. Gentleman says that council housing is designed to help.
The Government's arguments take no account of reality. The Secretary of State says that all housing associations, including the charitable ones, receive public money by way of grant. So do private landlords. No right exists there. The Secretary of State has given no sign that he expects to extend the right to buy into that sector. Conservative Members choose to forget that housing association grants are repayable through the grant redemption fund. Whichever way one looks at the issue, the Minister has no right to intervene.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will my hon. Friend try to ascertain from the Secretary of State whether properties above Parker Morris standard built by housing associations since 1974, partly with grants from central Government but also through an input of charitable finance—Help the Aged and Anchor Housing are examples—are to be sold? If there is any charitable input, will the properties be exempt?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the Secretary of State will be eager to clarify the point and assure hon. Members that the financial efforts of charities and the efforts in time and energy of the people involved in them will be taken into


account and that the charities will be compensated for the work that they have done. As the right hon. Gentleman shows no sign that this is the case, I assume that the answer to my hon. Friend's question is "No", and that charitable housing association properties will be sold without any regard to the work done previously.

Mr. Heseltine: That is not the case. The hon. Lady will be aware that there is protection for the funds of the charities in those circumstances.

Mrs. Taylor: Is the Secretary of State saying that, if there has been an input of charitable work and charitable funds into housing associations to improve the standard of housing, they will be reimbursed or that the houses will not form part of the right-to-buy provisions of the Bill?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady will want to explore this matter in detail in Committee. I wish only to clarify the point that she pursues. Her comments are ill founded. Where private charitable money has flowed into the houses, there will be protection for the private charitable funds and arrangements made to protect those funds. The precise manner in which this is done will have to be carefully examined. The background is complex. I am informed, however, that we shall be able to find ways of dealing with the point.

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the Secretary of State intervened to clarify that point. We look forward to his justification of what he said. All that he has said is that he does not know the answer to the question. It would be charitable to leave that point there and to let the Minister for Housing and Construction answer in more detail later.
With regard to charitable properties, the Secretary of State is taking no account of the practical difficulties that will inevitably arise. It will be impossible for the housing charities to replace the homes that they are forced to sell. The receipts after discounts and repayments of outstanding loans will be minimal. We know that the charitable organisations will not be able to replace those properties.
Therefore, the ability of the charities to fulfil their obligations will be seriously curtailed. Moreover, the proposal will be divisive because some tenants with the right to buy will make a good profit on later resale due to the improvements to an area made by housing associations, especially in the inner cities, about which the Secretary of State expresses so much concern. At the same time, other tenants of the same charitable trust will be excluded from the right to buy and will not be able to get anything.
In one street one could have, and probably will have, tenants of housing trusts who have lived in properties for 10 years but are unable to buy their property, whereas their neighbours, whose property was acquired later by the trust and is therefore more modern and who may have been tenants for only about four years, will be able to buy the property at a large discount. Subsequently they will be able to make a large profit on the sale. I look forward to a Minister telling us where the justice is in that. The Secretary of State is creating many problems for housing associations, which will have to explain all that detail to tenants.
As I said, the measures are rightly causing alarm among the charitable groups affected. They will prove an administrative and perhaps a legal nightmare for the associations concerned. They pose a threat to all charities

that accept Government grants, even those that repay those grants. We shall oppose the provisions vigorously in Committee. We look forward to support from many quarters. I only wish that there were more support from Conservative Members.
I must restate our basic opposition to the right to buy as the Government have created it. None of the arguments that were put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and others in 1980 is any less relevant now. They become more pertinent as our housing crisis intensifies.
We argued in 1980 that the nation could not afford the loss of rented accommodation created by the 1980 Act. Since then sales, combined with the abysmally low levels of replacement building that the Government allowed, have led to a drop in the number of public sector homes. I do not see how the Secretary of State can think that it is good to lose so many rented properties when all around him are so many signs of the need for good rented accommodation.
My right hon. Friend said in 1980 that we could not afford the loss of that rented accommodation. Events have proved him right. However, one thing has changed since the debates in 1980, and that is the cost of the sales policy. At the time many questions were asked, such as: "Will council house sales create a profit or a loss?" The Secretary of State said that that depended on 'the assumptions that were made.
One of the crucial assumptions was about rent levels. The Government issued a cheerful-sounding document called:
The appraisal of the financial effects of council house sales".
They made a number of assumptions about rent levels. In that now amazing document rents were assumed by the Government to rise by a minimum of 3 per cent. and a maximum of 11 per cent. per year. Then the Secretary of State's rent directives forced up rents by 117 per cent., with more increases to come. Part of the reason for the increase in rents was the encouragement of sales, but one of the effects has been to increase the cost of sales for local authorities.
One of the remarkable ironies is that the buyer of a council home may receive more subsidy as an owner-occupier than he did as a council tenant, yet the Government still portray council tenants as the subsidised sector of society. We were opposed to compulsory sales in 1980. Everything that has happened since reinforces our opposition.

Mr. Heseltine: I take it that the hon. Lady will therefore be committed to the repeal of the right to buy.

Mrs. Taylor: I am happy to tell the Secretary of State that we are committed to the repeal of the right to buy. We shall say so in our election manifesto. [HON. MEMBERS: "And a rent freeze.") As my hon. Friends remind me, we are also committed to a rent freeze. That will do more to help council tenants than all that the Secretary of State has done in the past three years.

Mr. Heddle: The hon. Lady has committed a future Labour Government to a rent freeze. How does she square that commitment with the findings of her party when in Government in 1977 in a Green Paper, which stated that council house rents should rise in line with money incomes?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of what the Conservative Government have done to council house rents over the past three years.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Would it not be more accurate to say that compulsory sales by councils will be ended by the next Labour Government? Are not the Secretary of State and Conservative Members forgetting that the councils that are being forced to sell or part-sell will have to pay, and continue to pay, the interest on the cost of those houses for the next 60 years?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. Many Conservative Members do not understand that repealing the right to buy means allowing local authorities to decide whether they will sell council houses in their own areas. That is what Labour Party policy has always been. I am happy to reiterate it.
The Secretary of State did not say much about the part of the Bill that deals with building controls. The present building controls system in England and Wales is concerned primarily to ensure that new buildings and extensions are erected to a high standard and are safe both for those who occupy them and for those who pass by them. Councils that are responsible for the building regulations have administered them effectively, drawing on the expertise of practical and experienced building professionals. The ability of the system to ensure the safety of new buildings has rarely been questioned. Even now it has not been challenged by the Government, despite their intentions in the Bill.
How the new system will work, and if the new system will work, is not yet clear. The Secretary of State has not clarified the system. We are being asked to take on trust a new system to replace one that has proved itself to be inherently safe and effective. The Government have not said whether the replacement system can maintain such high standards. If certification is introduced along the lines suggested by the Government in consultation papers there will be a direct threat to the safety of buildings. Although the new private inspectors will be independent, they may rely on a few developers for their work, so they could become less than independent.
The system of building control must be above reproach. Building control officers in local authorities are independent and do not owe their position to any one developer. That must continue. Anything else would be unacceptable.
Moreover, if developers are allowed to go to independent inspectors, it will be difficult for local authorities to establish their work load in any one year. They will not be in a position to respond to substantial increases in the amount of work or to deal with developments originally privately certified but subsequently returned to local authorities for control. If certifiers can be found to operate the scheme, local authorities will be left with just the complex and contentious schemes. Their experienced building control staff may by then have joined private firms, thus reducing the capacity of local authorities to deal with complex developments. This, too, must introduce a possible threat to safety standards, as well as maximise the problems for local authorities.

Mr. Michael Latham: Does the hon. Lady realise that, when she speaks about safety from the Opposition Front Bench, it is a matter of importance? Is

she in effect saying that if a private developer were to use an independent private certifier, a member of a professional institution, there might be occasions when that professional would do his work deliberately badly and not certify and inspect properly?

Mrs. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman checks, he will find that I did not say that the professional would do his work "deliberately badly". I said that it was important that the people who do the work should be independent and should be seen to be independent.
Not just Labour Members and local authorities are anxious about the new proposals. The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) spoke about professional people. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which I think he would acknowledge has a right to have its voice heard on this matter, has said:
The Institution's considered view remains that it would neither be in the public interest nor that of the building industry to remove building controls from local authorities.
The Bill has been described to me as a charter for developers who have fallen out with local government.
There is an important basic principle at stake because the enforcement of building control regulations is really law enforcement. In some countries, building inspectors are known, quite rightly, as building police. The Secretary of State is proposing to give this law enforcement function to private citizens. This is an unprecedented move, and one that comes strangely from a Government who are supposed to be devoted to law and order. Not only does the Secretary of State intend to place in private hands responsibility for enforcing regulations designed to ensure public safety, but he intends to give himself free reign to do it without consulting anybody.
Clause 38 removes the obligation placed on the Secretary of State by legislation to consult the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and other bodies before making regulations. In future, his obligations to consult will be limited to technical matters, and no doubt the Secretary of State thinks that that is wise in view of his recent consultation experience. I do not think that those concerned with building regulations support the moves that the Secretary of State is proposing. That is why he will be happy not to consult them in future.
I have been talking about what the Bill is about—the tenants' right to buy and building control. That seems to be the sum total of what the Government think is necessary in housing. Yet, as the Secretary of State and his colleagues remind us daily, the prime need in housing is for increased capital expenditure—expenditure to improve and repair our rapidly deteriorating housing stock and for new build. It comes as a delightful surprise, after three years of the Opposition trying to persuade the Secretary of State of the need for spending, to find that we are suddenly preaching to the converted. If this is a real conversion, it is good, but it depends whether we can take what the Secretary of State says at face value.
The problem is that the Secretary of State knows as well as anyone that the vast majority of local authorities are spending their capital allocations and cannot plan in advance to spend uncertain capital receipts.

Mr. Heseltine: Rubbish.

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish", and is therefore asking local authorities to plan to spend money that they cannot be sure that they will


receive. I should not have thought that the Secretary of State would approve of that. If local authorities were to spend before receiving authorisation, I should have thought that the Secretary of State would be the first to criticise them.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady must be aware that local authorities have £600 million from last year, which is quite a substantial sum. They should be able to make use of that.

Mrs. Taylor: The Secretary of State was complaining that the local authorities did not spend the money last year. However, they did not know in advance that they would receive it, and could not have planned for that amount of spending.

Mr. Heseltine: The local authorities now have it, and can spend it this year, but they are not spending it.

Mrs. Taylor: I wish that the local authorities thought that the position was as simple as that, because if they were sure that they would have that money and that the Secretary of State would let them spend it and meet the revenue consequences of that expenditure, they would be very pleased.
The Secretary of State should be aware that one of the main stumbling blocks on capital spending is that local authorities are uncertain about capital allocations for future years. If the Secretary of State is so anxious to increase capital spending, why does not the Bill contain provision for giving local authorities some machinery by which they can be given security about the level of capital expenditure for two or three years ahead? If the Secretary of State is so anxious about capital spending, I wonder whether he would give effect to it by supporting an amendment in Committee that could bring some forward planning into the existing machinery for allocating capital spending to local authorities.
From what the Secretary of State has said, it seems that he has no other causes for concern about housing than the right to buy. However, the Bill will clearly make no significant impact on the parts of the housing crisis to which the Government have turned a blind eye. There is no mention of help for the homeless, yet the number of homeless families has reached a record level. It is a year since the Department quietly published a report called "Single and Homeless", which showed clearly that for the vast majority of single homeless the overriding need was for ordinary, reasonably priced rented houses. The report came from the Department of the Environment, but there is nothing in the Bill to help the homeless.
There is the problem of houses in multiple occupation. It is true that the Department introduced regulations last year after yet another tragic hostel fire. However, they cover only the larger hostels. They would have done nothing to prevent most fire tragedies in the past, and they do nothing to ensure adequate standards in hostels generally.
Although the Bill will help some council tenants to buy, it does nothing for the rest—the majority. Why does not the Secretary of State try to do something for them by ensuring that they will get more for the increased rent that he is forcing them to pay? If councils are making a profit out of their tenants, as many are, there is surely a case for ensuring that tenants receive the benefit of that profit in better services.
Why do not the Government extend the tenants' charter? They took over the Labour tenants' charter and

put it into the 1980 Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Conservative Members seem to have a short memory. Their party took over our tenants' charter and put it into the 1980 Act.

Mr. Freeson: Would my hon. Friend advise Conservative Members to go to the Library instead of laughing and get a copy of the published Bill of the Labour Government? The tenants' charter which the Tories took over and partly amended downwards was published and it was intended that it should be put in legislation before the 1979 general election.

Mrs. Taylor: Many Conservative Members are well known for having selective memories and it might do them good to refresh them.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): Perhaps the hon. Lady will go to the Library and see the Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) now Under-Secretary of State for Transport. She will notice that the then Labour Administration voted down the tenants' charter.

Mrs. Taylor: Perhaps the Minister will look at the Labour Government's Bill, which was published, and at its details. Indeed, he should look at it, because one of the bits that this Government subsequently left out of their legislation was the right of tenants to be consulted about rents. The Labour Government proposed that. After three years of rent increases from a Conservative Government, we can understand why they left out that provision.
I come to the provisions in the Bill and those, more importantly, that have been left out. Perhaps it would be naive to expect the Government to concern themselves with the problems of the homeless, and single and public sector tenants who cannot afford to take advantage of the right to buy. In the past three and a half years the Government's priorities have been clear, and they are not related to housing need. One of the Department of the Environment's internal documents—for Central Office, I suspect—proves that point. The paper is called "The Department of the Environment—A Synopsis of Main Developments, May 1979-November 1982" and has a long section on housing. It mentions the right to buy, shared ownership, homesteading, shortholds, assured tenancies—all 21 of them—and the other fringe measures that the Government have introduced to divert attention from the main problem. However, the document quite wisely makes no mention of house building. After all, why should the Secretary of State publicise the fact that the Government's figures on housing starts are the worst since 1924?
The Secretary of State is now shedding crocodile tears about capital expenditure, yet, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick pointed out last Monday, when the Secretary of State introduced his so-called new deal on spending, that new deal represents a further 14 per cent. cut. In reality, the Government are simply trying to create a good impression with the big builders. After all, the general election draws near and contributions will once again be required. The Bill does nothing to alleviate the housing crisis that the Government have created, and we shall oppose it tonight.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am extremely glad to have been called unusually early in the debate. It is a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor). I should like to take up some of her points about parts II and III of the Bill. With respect, I do not think she quite understands the role of the professional in the building industry. Certain professional people may be among those who are approved inspectors under the Government's proposals. The hon. Lady made one or two remarks that seemed to impugn the integrity of such people.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, West will forgive me if I do not take up her comments on part I concerning the extension of the right to buy. The arguments were well rehearsed during discussion of the Housing Bill 1980. However, there is a fundamental difference about the Government's right to allow council tenants to buy their homes, because the State is the owner—whether it is central Government, Government Department, or local authority. It must be remembered that local authorities are part of the State. They draw most of their revenue from Government block grants and therefore there is a fundamental difference between homes which the State owns and homes which a private citizen owns.
I welcome part I because I believe in the principle of the right to buy and in the extension of home ownership. It is right that those who were forbidden by the 1980 Act to buy their council homes because the lands on which their properties stood were held on leaseholds should have the right to buy, as well as certain tenants of housing associations and trusts. On the wider housing issues already raised in the debate, I commend the Government on the way in which they have enacted a range of proposals that emphasise the important role in housing policy of partnership between the private sector and the local authority. I need mention only shared ownership, homesteading and the breaking up, through ownership, of vast council estates. Those estates led to social divisions within the country. Therefore, I welcome the enactment of such measures.
It would be appropriate and prudent of me to declare such interests as I have. I am a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, although no one will dispute that I am a non-practising architect. I am also a non-executive director of a development company and of a construction company.
Part III of the Bill deeply interests me. It has always surprised me that four different sets of building regulations should apply to different parts of the United Kingdom: to inner London, to the rest of England and Wales, to Scotland, and to Northern Ireland. Ideally there should be one set of building regulations that cover the whole of the United Kingdom, but I realise that that would be difficult because I understand—although I am not a lawyer—that there is a different legal system in Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, if the Bill is enacted and new regulations are issued, I hope that the Government will seriously consider whether Scotland and Northern Ireland should follow suit.
I am equally amazed that within each of those four parts of the United Kingdom one necessarily comprehensive set of building regulations should cover all types and sizes of building. The regulations apply equally to the erection of

simple structures and of technically complicated structures that are built in different materials. There is a case for separating those building regulations. There is every reason to suspect that the building regulations at present are in many respects too complex and confusing. They are cumbersome and in some ways—I do not wish to exaggerate—unnecessarily bureaucratic. On occasion, they are too inflexible. They inhibit innovation, particularly in design, and they impose unnecessary costs.

Mr. Freeson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the two main objectives of reform should be the more effective expansion or development of type certification and the simplification of the consultation process, to foreshorten it? Will the hon. Gentleman please accept that the Bill does nothing to help in that way or to reduce the complexity and bureaucracy of the system?

Mr. Chapman: I hesitate to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, because he has immense experience in Government of dealing with such matters. However, with respect, I do not entirely agree about those two points. There are many other significant factors. However, I promise to re-think what the hon. Gentleman has said, because I have great respect for his experience.
Throughout the industry, there is widespread dissatisfaction and it extends further than the big builders. People are dissatisfied about the scope and form of the existing regulations. Those regulations could be simplified. It is no contradiction to suggest that there could be separate regulations for, for example, small structures, housing, industrial buildings and for public and commercial buildings. I ask my right hon. Friend earnestly to consider that matter.
Above all, I want the regulations to be unified so that they cover the whole of the United Kingdom. I note, of course, that the Bill refers only to England and Wales, because of the different legal systems. Perhaps at this stage I might pay a sincere tribute to the work of the Minister's building regulations advisory committee. It does difficult and sterling work under the chairmanship of Mr. David Llewellyn. I hope that the committee will be called upon to advise and perhaps suggest drafts for the new regulations.
I welcome particularly the way in which the regulations are to be divided so that there are mandatory requirements which must be carried out, and which relate obviously to basic safety and health matters.

Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the Secretary of State talked about 100 years of bureaucracy and disagreement with the building regulations, it was only as recently as 1965 that there was a major review of building regulations, when they were made more flexible? Is it not true that, without this legislation, a similar review and improvement of building regulations could well have taken place?

Mr. Chapman: I disagree with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) for two reasons. As he knows, technical innovation is taking place in the construction and building industry at an almost frightening pace. Secondly, the building regulations have to be changed from year to year. That is done, although the process is far too tortuous. However, that does not impinge in any way on what I am saying and on what is laid down in the Bill.
We need a second category of building regulations to give guidance on other matters. In the introduction it was


called, I think, performance standards. Clearly the Government will draw on the use of codes of practice and the British Standards Institute's specifications.
I want to put two suggestions to my right hon. Friend. First, I hope that the practical guidance part of the proposed building regulations, as with all parts of the present regulations, will be an absolute defence in law. The aggrieved party should be in a position to use compliance with the regulations in a court of law. I accept that these are immensely complicated and technical issues, and perhaps more suitable for debate in Standing Committee, but with respect, there should be a better means of resolving arguments and disputes. May I remind the House that originally the procedures for dealing with disputes were laid down in section 64(3) of the Public Health Act 1936. Disputes were dealt with by a court of summary jurisdiction, which I am reliably informed means a magistrates' court. As I suggested, in answer to an intervention, building law has become much more sophisticated and complex. I suggest that magistrates' courts may not be the best body to deal with such legal disputes.
I realise that, alternatively, an aggrieved party can go to the Secretary of State for determination under the existing legislation, but only if both parties—the applicant and the local authority—agree. That is under section 67 of the 1936 Act. This new Bill will extinguish that right. I accept that an aggrieved person can go to the Secretary of State, but he can do so only if the guidance note or performance standard is written. That, as I understand it, is the meaning of clause 35 of the Bill.
I ask the Government seriously to consider widening clause 35 so that any party unilaterally may go to the Secretary of State on any dispute relating to any part of the new building regulations, whether the aggrieved person is dealing with a local authority or with one of the approved inspectors. I understand that at present it is intended to apply only when the dispute is with the local authority. Such a change as I propose could be practically implemented and frivolous appeals to the Secretary of State would be prevented in my opinion because fees would be payable.
Part II introduces certification, or approved inspectors. In my view, that is sensible and right. I welcome, in particular, the proposals for public authorities to selfcertify—if I may use that piece of shorthand—because there is some illogicality in the present set-up. If a county council wants to build houses for the police, it has to get building regulations approval from the local district authority. On the other hand, if a regional health authority wants to build a hospital, or an electricity board wants to erect a sub-station, or British Rail wants to put up a signal box, they do not need to get permission from the local district authority. The Bill gets rid of the wasteful and costly exercise of double-checking, when competent people in private sector companies and in public bodies have to have their work double-checked by other competent people. Therefore, the Government are taking a perfectly reasonable step in this respect.
Finally, there is a matter which I believe is directly related to this issue but which, alas—perhaps understandably—is not in the Bill. My right hon. Friend, in introducing parts II and III, spoke of the twin objectives in his proposals for the new building regulations. The first was the introduction of certification and approved inspectors. The second was the simplification—and, I

hope, the unification and change in the scope and form—of building regulations. In my view, all these are inextricably involved in the law of liability, when subsequent defects are found in buildings. It is both essential and vital to deal with this matter, since the House of Lords decision on the Anns v. the London borough of Merton case. I find it astonishing that there is no time limit to liability in the present law. I always understood, for example, that for architects the liability was six years. Others may say that it was 10 years. I do not make a special plea for the professional group of people with which I was once associated. This matter is just as vital for local authorities and builders as it is for architects. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, if he is to wind up this evening, to deal with this matter, because in my view it is urgent. He may say that the matter cannot be dealt with in this Bill, and I would understand that. However, it should be a first priority of the Government to introduce amending legislation to deal with the law of liability.
This is a necessarily complex measure, dealing with the technicalities of building. It affects fundamentally important aspects of the housing and construction industry. In my view, it goes in the right direction. Certain details need careful consideration and improvement—if I may presume to say that—in Standing Committee. I fervently believe that the building regulations can be simplified and unified without detriment to health and safety standards, both during and after construction. I congratulate the Government on their initiative. I commend the Bill to the House. I shall support it in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: First, I put on record my interest in matters that are the subject of the Bill. In an honorary capacity, I am associated with several charitable housing associations.
Much has recently been made by the Secretary of State, the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Prime Minister of the alleged failure of local authorities to spend their capital provision, despite their having been instructed by the Government to cut back on that expenditure for the past three and a half years.
We must understand what happens to capital receipts that remain unspent, either in a single year or from one year to the next. Ministers are responsible for much myth-making on that subject. There is an idea—it arose in exchanges earlier—that there is about £1,500 million of capital receipts knocking around in local government which has not been spent and which the Government now want spent on capital investment. Welcome as Government statements in the past couple of weeks have been, they know perfectly well that only a marginal part of that sum could be spent between now and 31 March.
More particularly, it must be said that the Government are not informing the House or the public accurately about this matter. Local authorities cannot generally be expected to plan capital investment in new construction on a 12-monthly basis when they do not know what money will be available.
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State, supported by his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, to ask why local authorities do not spend the £600 million from last year. Do the Minister and Conservative Back Benchers think


that that £600 million is in a series of boxes somewhere in town halls? If the Government can argue or believe that, they have not the slightest idea how local government finances are organised. It is astonishing that the Secretary of State should make such a statement at the Dispatch Box, and have it endorsed from a sedentary position by the Minister of Housing and Construction, and for similar statements to be made in the country.
As these matters have come to the fore in recent weeks, I have put several questions to the Secretary of State. I have asked him whether he would advise local authorities to use any, or a significant, part of their capital receipts to reduce rate burdens. It was clear from the answers that I received that he did not understand what I was saying. If he did understand, he was misleading the House and the public in his replies.
The money is being spent. It is being used to refinance existing debts, to reduce likely rates at the end of the financial year and being put into various accounts to reduce current and prospective expenditure this year and next. It is nonsense to suggest that £600 million of capital receipts is lying around somewhere waiting to be spent on bricks and mortar. It has been put into balances, paid off existing debts or partly financed new debts—new loans that are being raised for capital expenditure last year and in the current year. It cannot just be picked out of a box and spent on housing or any other construction activity.
The same must be said of the other £900 million to £1,000 million. That is not lying around waiting to be spent. It is being spent. The issue is how local authorities should spend the money. Should it be spent on reducing the rate burdens, which Ministers have been urging local authorities to do, or should they spend it on capital investment that will produce revenue and carry rate burdens further in the coming years? Interest rates have come down recently, but they are still high on borrowings.
I do not wish to pursue the matter beyond that point. I hope that there will be some intelligent discussion of such figures in future by Ministers, whether in the House or elsewhere, and not the myth-making nonsense that they have been putting around in the past few weeks and months.
The word "months" brings me to a point that I have mentioned previously in the House. I was in correspondence with the Minister for Housing and Construction in the early summer about statements made by him and others on the likely underspend on allocations, never mind capital receipts. He will recall our correspondence in May and June this year which emerged from even earlier correspondence on related matters. To this day I have not had a reply to my final letter. I urged him then to do precisely what the Secretary of State proposed in a big statement to the House only a week ago. What was going on between June and November?
I urged that free rein should be given to local authorities and housing associations which wanted and were physically able to spend more, while other authorities, for various reasons, were underspending, according to the Minister. He rejected that proposal and said, in so many words, that it would be considered next year. He suggested that if local authorities wanted to switch their resources around within their budgets, they would be free to do so.
It took the Government several months to come to the House to make good some reasonable part of the

underspend about which the Minister was talking as early as June and July this year. That is unforgivable. The Government are playing politics with an important matter in the worst possible way.
That leads me to my next point. It is not possible for local authorities to maintain reasonable programmes of investment if housing associations and corporations are being confined to 12-monthly budgeting. The Labour Government made limited but effective moves to end that nonsense. It took much arguing with the Treasury and inside the Department, but from 1978 onwards local authorities were at least able to extend their budgeting by 10 per cent. one year into the next or claw back 10 per cent. of their budget provision for the current year without interference by the Department. We were also able to give a base capital allocation for the second year in a three-yearly cycle. The ultimate objective was to make allocations on a three-yearly basis. By our deeds shall we know ourselves. We took steps in that direction.
What happened under this Government? They dropped those measures and went back to 12-monthly budgets on capital provision for both local authorities and housing associations. Worse still, in some areas of housing there is more detailed interference in local authorities' capital allocations, limited as such allocations may be, than there was 10 or 15 years ago.
More than 15 years ago, the local authority in Brent wanted to purchase old, run-down houses on a programmatic basis for modernisation without subsidy. In those days there were no subsidies or grants. In difficult housing conditions, we were prepared to do it out of our own resources. We negotiated the agreement of the then Minister and Department to block loan sanctions so that we had flexibility in the use of resources within the 12-month period. We said that we wanted to spend up to a certain amount and asked whether we had to obtain the agreement of the Department for every property that we wanted to buy, which was the position at that time. We negotiated block loan sanctions so that we could programme our work and run efficient departments. Hon. Members should ask local authorities what they now have to do.
The Minister will know from correspondence from me about my own authority that it was not a matter even of asking for more resources, although we have done that too. I said to him that I was not arguing about more resources, because that would be for another time. I asked for authority to be given to the borough council, within the limits that the Minister had imposed, to spend what it considered necessary to improve, rehabilitate and convert properties into flats in areas which were outside general improvement and housing action areas. What was his answer? He said that he did not like to see municipalisation of properties and that, therefore, he would continue to require local authorities to apply for permission to purchase houses that they wished to rehabilitate and modernise before they could go ahead.
That is happening all over London and in every major city in Britain. Therefore, how can it be argued that local authorities have effective administrative instruments at their disposal to programme work in an efficient and economic way when there is more interference today than 15 years ago?
I urge the Minister to consider this again. It is separate from the total level of resources. If we cannot get agreement on this matter, how can we expect other than


underspend in many instances in local government? Local authorities must be given the capacity to organise and to programme for more than just a few weeks, a few months or 12 months ahead. I urge that this should be allowed. In addition, they should he told over as long a period as possible what their capital allocation will be, irrespective of capital receipts which may or may not be forthcoming.
Do the Government and Conservative Members who are seriously concerned about housing rather than merely sloganising about it really believe that without genuine assessment of housing need and demand at local, regional and national level, which was the original underlying theme of the housing strategies and investment programmes, we should participate in a run-down of the total number—irrespective of the ownership—of rented properties in Britain?
Are Conservative Members and even Ministers aware that for the first time in half a century we have fewer rented properties in Britain as a result of a major indiscriminate selling-off by compulsion of properties that in many instances might justifiably not have been sold off?
If we want sensible policy at local, regional and national level, it should be based on the best-known assessment of housing need and demand in as minute an area as can possibly be examined and analysed. Macro and sweeping legislation does no good to sensible housing policy. It creates a position in which, unknown to most of us—possibly unknown to the Government and to many people who speak to me on this issue—for the first time in half a century we have a significantly smaller number of rented properites.
Until the past year or so, there had been a loss of between 100,000 and 120,000 units of rented accommodation in the private sector, chiefly as a result of sales into owner-occupation. Many factors underlie that position, but I do not wish to pursue them in detail today. They can be argued one way or the other—politically, economically and socially. But we also had, year by year, as a result of new legislation, 100,000 or more rented properties being made available by local authorites and housing associations and adding to the stocks. What was lost on one side was made good on the other.
Until a year or so ago there were about 6 million rented properties in Britain. That was the approximate figure—allowing a few thousand one way or the other—that existed in 1945. The total number had not gone down. Now, with the Government's ideologically obsessional policy translated into legislation without any concern for the detail of need and demand, hundreds of thousands of properties, which until now have been rented, are being transferred into owner-occupation by compulsion. That approach is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong that, without concern for a proper examination of need and demand, we should end up for the first time in our history with a significant reduction in the total number of rented properties—a reduction by hundreds of thousands.

Mr. Robin Squire: Would the right hon. Gentleman extend the description "ideological obsession" to those of his colleagues who regularly condemn private renting and who, by doing so and by a refusal to encourage people to bring properties on to the market, have equally played a great part in reducing the numbers of properties available for rent?

Mr. Freeson: I condemn any obsession in housing, from wherever it comes. However, let me make it quite clear that I do not consider it obsessional when Labour Members or, indeed, Conservative Members have for many years campaigned against, and taken action to rectify, the disgraceful condition of many parts of private sector rented accommodation. A large part of public sector housing, at least until recent years, has been provided to replace such rotten accommodation. One could argue in detail at great length about the economic, social and legislative factors which have given rise to that position, but there is nothing obsessional about campaigning against it and taking effective action to do something about it. That introduces the role of housing associations, housing trusts and local authorities.
For all the justifiable criticism of particular aspects of public sector housing, in general we need have no shame about what we have achieved. On the contrary, we should be proud of what we have done over half a century or more in public sector housing. Many countries throughout the world, including some advanced industrial countries, wish that they could have followed the same road, in one way or another, to deal with their housing problems.
There are further aspects to the argument about sales. The Housing Act 1980 was wrong to compel the indiscriminate sale of thousands of rented dwellings. It led, without our knowing that would be the result, to a significant reduction in the total rented sector. If we continue down this road, we shall have a financial loss. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) has said that it may be developing already. All the experts on housing put this argument in 1980 and earlier. The evidence, as briefly referred to by my hon. Friend, points more and more in that direction.
Further, we shall have a significant loss of relet accommodation. That problem will be in addition to the difficulties surrounding new build to which we have referred on so many occasions. The report of the Select Committee on the Environment states that for every 100,000 properties that are sold, each year nearly 3,000 relets that would have been made available to those in housing need will, as a consequence, not be made available. I think that the statistic was 2,600. It was between 2,500 and 3,000 a year. At one stage in ihe argument that factor was discounted. In Committee and in the House the Minister suggested that the effect on relets would be minimal, and that that would be so for 30 to 35 years. However, it became clear, following further exchanges, that for every 100,000 properties sold between 2,500 and 3,000 vacancies each year, will no longer be available to be let to those in greatest need.
If we continue along this road, we shall not bring an end to the divisive society. We are all concerned about massive estates, but if they are broken up, in the best sense of the term, they will not benefit. The signs are that these estates will be reinforced in their isolation. They will become separated even further from the more attractive housing that we have provided for the most part in the local authority sector.
There will be an end to divisiveness if we accept that the argument is not about the right to buy. The Labour Governments of 1964–70 and 1974–79 gave authority to local authorities to negotiate, if they wished, the sale of some of their properties. There has been no argument about that authority. Some might have engaged in it, but


they were arguing about basic policy that was accepted and applied by previous Governments and their predecessors without a major dispute.
The argument arises when there is compulsion on local authorities to sell, irrespective of their judgment, irrespective of their examination of the needs of their area and irrespective of whether they will lose vacancies as a result of selling. The Labour Party need have no fears about the argument of pro and anti owner-occupation. It is a worn-out argument. The local community in my constituency has not bothered with it for years. It knows where I stand and where my party stands and where we have stood over many years.
It is wrong to play politics with these issues, which is what the Bill is doing. I accept that we need legislation to deal with building regulations, but I am not happy about the way in which the Bill tackles the problem. In the runup to a possible general election, which may take place in a short while, the Government have decided to have another little game with housing. This is political dressage.
The Bill has nothing to do with real housing needs in our cities and throughout the country generally. The Government are prepared to continue to play games with housing instead of getting down to the job that should concern them. They should be engaged in examining real needs and trying to meet them. They should be encouraging local authorities and housing associations to meet them. The Government have signally failed to do so for the past three years and they have shown no sign that they will get out of the present mess this side of the election. I hope and believe that the British people will not be fooled once more.

Mr. Michael Latham: The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) speaks with immense experience and knowledge of housing. He was Minister with responsibilities for housing for longer than anyone else. Obviously we always listen to him with care. I am tempted to take up many of his remarks on work load and sales but it is not to those topics that I wish to direct my remarks.
However, on work load, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Departmental colleagues have been urging local authorities to spend their capital receipts. Especial emphasis has been placed on improvement work. The need to proceed with it has been urged by myself and by many others on both sides of the House. There is a great deal to be done on improvement work. There are over 1 million houses in Britain without internal WCs and that is scandalous. Local authorities should be getting on with the issuing of improvement and repair grants. My right hon. and hon. Friends have an excellent record in improving the level of grants, strengthening the relevant legislation and widening the scope of it. They have nothing to be ashamed of in this regard.
I wish to speak about parts II and III of the Bill and in so doing I remind the House of my interest in the building industry, currently as a director of a house building company and previously as the director of the House Builders' Federation. I declare that interest, as always, but it is of loose relevance only to the Bill.
First, I shall try to put my right hon. Friend's radical new proposals in their wider context. We are dealing with a vital issue that goes to the heart of building, which is how to stop buildings falling down. When my right hon. Friend took office there were quite a few nasties lurking in the undergrowth. I am not talking about the former Government. Perhaps it will be salutary to recall some of them. It is right to say that they all arose under the existing building control system. That needs to be said because of to remarks made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) while speaking from the Opposition Front Bench.
First, there was Ronan Point, which fell down in 1968. Four people were killed and umpteen millions of pounds had to be spent to strengthen tower blocks throughout the country. The inquiry found an inherent design failure, inadequate building regulation and an unsatisfactory code of practice.
There was the tragic and dreadful incident at Summerlands with 50 deaths and further amendments to the building regulations. High alumina cement was another cause of concern. Its structural use had been controlled by the French Government as long ago as 1928 and again in 1935. It had been banned in Bavaria in 1962 but no adequate action was taken in the United Kingdom until 1975.
There was the lowering of U-values in 1974–75, and subsequently, which has produced a most disturbing gap between the technology of eliminating heat loss and the threat of damp penetration. We still do not know enough about the long-term effects of some materials used in domestic insulation.
Further, there were the polyurethane ceilings which the Greater London Council took out of buildings at Thamesmead and elsewhere. There was the woodwool slabs affair at New Malden. There have been great problems and heartaches over the use of calcium chloride. There was the "Clasp" system fire at Fairfield in Nottinghamshire. These are only some of the more highly publicised cases of building failures and disasters.
The mechanism of public sector control which my right hon. Friend inherited was basically fourfold. There were the building regulations that were supervised by building control officers. It was a long-standing and extremely reputable system, but it was open to criticism from architects and others that the regulations were virtually incomprehensible. Criticism was frequently made and widely reported in the trade press.
There was the Building Research Establishment, which was famous throughout the world. However, there was low morale as a result of a series of staff cuts, especially during the 1960s and 1970s. The Building Research Establishment experienced a frequent change of sponsoring Ministers and the introduction of a bureaucratic nightmare of committees and departmental working parties, which sprang from the Rothschild principle of commissioned research. There was also the Agrément Board, which was virtually dying on its feet in 1979 and which the independent Bennett committee had recommended merging with the British Standards Institution. Finally, there was the National Building Agency, which had long ceased to have much connection with its original job of appraising industrialised building systems. It had become, in effect, a private consultancy firm with a substantial public sector work load.


The NBA has since been scrapped, along with the housing development directorate of the Department of the Environment, the Environmental Board and the Department of the Environment directorate of research. All those bodies had diffuse concern or had responsibility for study and research into building or design problems. May I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I remember you and I discussing the matter at about four o'clock in the morning on two separate occasions when you had ministerial responsibility for such matters.
There were also the legal nasties to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) referred. Looming over all was the problem of liability. The decisions of the courts in Dutton v. Bognor Regis urban district council, Anns v. Merton and others—coupled with the Defective Premises Act 1972—seem to imply a total and unlimited liability on local authorities and their building control officers. No wonder some of them ran for cover and builders began to complain of a slow and defensive attitude from the building control machinery.
The response that I favoured was to try to deal with all those problems at once. I argued two years ago that Ministers should merge the Building Research Establishment and the Agrément Board into a construction industry testing authority. I envisaged a public, statutory agency. It would become mandatory for a new component or product coming on to the market to receive a testing certificate from the agency, or from private laboratories working under contract to the agency. If the product received a certificate, it would automatically be deemed to satisfy the building regulations. The cost of the testing would be met by fees and, since the process would be mandatory—the Agrément process is not—it would be self-financing. Liability for failures would fall on the manufacturer, designer or contractor, as appropriate, subject to a 10-year limit. Liability would lie against CITA only if the agency had failed to test properly the new product or had otherwise acted in a negligent or incompetent manner.
My proposals were not acceptable to Ministers. That was fair enough, as they have responsibility for decisions and I do not. Instead, they reprieved the Agrément Board, but they left the system of submission of products as voluntary. The Building Research Establishment was to be given a new independent management board and was also to have the assistance of an EDC for the building industry research strategy committee. There was, alas, a serious muddle over the hasty introduction of fees for building regulations consent. The first regulations in 1980 were a complete mess, but the 1982 revisions were better.
My right hon. Friend also decided that the nettle of building controls should be grasped differently. Whereas I wanted a national organisation whose certificates would be deemed to satisfy the regulations, Ministers chose a more flexible option—a combination of private certification and a drastic revision of the regulations. In that respect, the Bill closely follows the consultative paper which was itself a development of last year's White Paper and of a major speech of the Secretary of State to the National House Building Council in December 1979.
The issues have been well argued in the industry, although some of the details remain obscure. The Bill, of course, leaves all the vital questions to the regulations. We are not told how a person is to achieve the status of approved inspector, nor what requirements will be made

for insurance. Nor do we know for how long the insurance period must last, or whether it will be an insurance of the building, an indemnity insurance of the inspector or both at the same time. The only thing we do know, which is essential, is that if the private certificate option is used there can be no question of the local authority retaining liability. The same is true of the new system of self-certification for other public sector bodies. That is quite right. The new system would be ludicrous if the local authority retained responsibility in such circumstances.
Some may say—the hon. Member for Bolton, West said it—that until these issues are resolved we cannot evaluate the Minister's proposals properly. There is some truth in that criticism, but I shall put forward some criteria against which we could judge the Bill in practice. Membership of a professional institution should not of itself be a sufficient qualification. There must be a separate vetting procedure for private sector inspectors, which should be carried out by the institutions, as the consultation paper said. It should, arguably, involve further academic qualifications that relate specifically to structural and engineering matters, and there must be much practical experience.
Secondly, self-certification by an architect, engineer or surveyor who is in the direct employ of the developer rather than acting as an independent consultant, is unlikely to command public confidence. The inspector must be at arm's length.
Thirdly, sub-certification cannot be acceptable unless there is an overall inspector who is plainly and directly responsible for the whole operation.
Fourthly, part certification, which is permitted in the consultation document, is undesirable. If the developer cannot find approved inspectors who can do the entire job, it would be better to leave it to the local authority and avoid duplication of effort and confusion of responsibility.
If liability is to fall personally on the certifier, he would become responsible for a defined period for buildings that he had not designed or built but only inspected. That suggests that it would be better to follow the French system and insure the building, which means in practice the architect and the contractor. Any liability against the certifier could be limited only to negligent inspection, and it must be time-limited. The Bill should also contain a time limit for local authority inspection. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. We must deal with that matter now.
The new building regulations are a brave attempt by the Minister. This technical issue cannot be examined properly on Second Reading and must await examination in Committee. Suffice to say now that the new "approved documents" do grasp the nettle of "deeming to satisfy" the building regulations, but they are not entirely satisfactory as a defence. They will not be subject to parliamentary control, as part of the trade-off in the new system of differentiating between the general proposals, which Parliament will approve, and the detailed, non-statutory back-up. That will present a fundamental dilemma to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and it is a matter of considerable controversy in the industry. We must have much more public discussion before final decisions are made.
I welcome with wry amusement clause 39, which repeals the Building Control Act 1966. That Act was a flop from the start. It destroyed the ministerial career of the late


Charles Pannell, a man who was very popular in the House, and it has been inoperative since 1968. During its passage through the House, I had a modest role to play in the Conservative Research Department, when I advised my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) and Sir Robin Chichester-Clark. I am glad to be in at the kill 16 years later.
Parts II and III of the Bill are not politically exciting and are unlikely to win or lose votes, but they are of immense importance to the construction industry and its allied professions. I congratulate sincerely my right hon. Friend on his determination to bring them forward, but the issue of preventing building failures remains. I hope that the Minister will ensure that both the Building Research Establishment and the Agrément Board give single-minded and constant attention to the need for efficient testing to avoid some of the horrors and disasters that we have experienced in past years. There is still much to be done in that regard.

Mr. Stephen Ross: It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), whose contribution once again showed his great professional abilities. I am sure that we shall all read it several times in the Official Report. I certainly hope that the hon. Gentleman will be serving on the Standing Committee, as there is much work to be done and he raised some highly pertinent questions. I hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) will also be a member of the Committee, as he, too, made a most valuable contribution.
My contribution, which will be considerably less learned than that of the hon. Member for Melton, will deal mainly with part I of the Bill. Although parts II and III are important, I think that most people will regard part I as containing the main proposals, which I view with great concern.
The true nature of what is about to hit them is only just dawning on many charitable housing associations. When I saw the outline of the Bill, I did not believe that it would apply to the housing association that I helped to found. I now find that it will apply absolutely and entirely. I therefore declare an interest as a founder member of the Isle of Wight housing association. I am no longer on the management committee and hold only a £1 share, but clearly I take a great interest in its development. I have also been a member of a London housing association. I should perhaps declare a further interest as I am still a fully paid-up member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, although I hasten to add that my qualifications were in agriculture and had nothing to do with building surveying.
The Isle of Wight housing association, which has been a great success, dates back to 1972–73 when there was an enormous increase in house prices. At that time, I was associated with a village church and Portsmouth diocesan board was saying that the land surrounding the rectory would have to be sold for executive-type homes. We rebelled against that on the grounds that if the land had to be disposed of it should at least be sold to build houses that would be available to the local people. There was a dire shortage of building land, no new houses were being built,

the average age of the population was continually rising and the younger generation were leaving the area. I shall not bore the House with the details of the battle, but ultimately a very red-faced archdeacon suggested to me that we should form a housing association and I replied, "We shall."
A local builder, Miles Clarke, joined me in the project. I put his name on record as he gave five years of unpaid and unstinting work to get the association off the ground. Week after week, he gave many hours of his time without any payment. He never built a house for the association. He ensured that his involvement was entirely separate from his building activities. If anyone deserves to be rewarded in the Honours List, it is he. I left him holding most of the responsibility. When we formed that association, we put our own money into it. Admittedly, it was not a great deal—several hundred pounds—and some came from Church sources. Nevertheless, we put our own money into it and in forming the association we examined various similar bodies, particularly in the Portsmouth area.
I am delighted to say that the Isle of Wight housing association has developed to such an extent that it now manages between 300 and 400 properties. Some were taken over from other associations, but most are converted stock or properties that have been built since 1974. It is a joy for me to visit the association. Indeed, I visited the management office only last Friday. At the request of the parish council, we deliberately built 40 or 50 housing units on glebe land in the centre of the village in a rural part of the Isle of Wight because we wanted to bring young people and families back to the village. Only the other day, I took part in a discussion about how a doctor's surgery could be brought to the area.
What will happen if the Bill is passed and that association is forced to sell recently completed properties at discounts of 35 per cent. and more? The people involved will decide to buy—perfectly sensibly, as it is a gift to them. They will then sell the properties and the process that we sought to arrest will begin all over again. The houses will become second homes or they will be occupied by retired people. The younger people will thus be forced to leave the area, the average age will rise again and the village will stagnate. As the National Federation of Housing Associations has said, the same will happen in the inner cities. Fat profits will be made on such sales and no one can blame the tenants for taking advantage of that chance.
I have just had to buy my own flat on a long lease, with repayments of about £400 per month, which I find rather harsh and cannot really afford. How some people are buying the properties that they are currently purchasing, I do not know. I believe that many of them must be in great difficulties with repayments. If the banks and building societies are not pressing them too hard, this may not yet have shown up, but I believe that in the next year or two there will be a large number of repossessions because people cannot meet their mortgage obligations.
It is not true that when the housing association tenants took occupation they did not know their position in relation to the right to buy. The first article of the Isle of Wight housing association tenants' charter concerns the right to buy and it is made clear that tenants of the association, which has charitable status and is registered as a charity, do not have the right to buy that secure tenants of non-charitable associations now have under the 1980 Act. A copy of that document was given to all tenants


moving in as well as those who had recently taken occupation. The Secretary of State now says that he has received a large number of letters from housing association tenants who wish to buy, but they knew the terms when they took occupation.
As the NFHA says, housing associations are controlled by volunteers. Even when a committee employs expert staff, its members give endless hours of their own time to help those in severe housing need. That donation of time to meet the needs of others is not acknowledged in the Bill. People have put in many years of voluntary service to secure decent homes for the disadvantaged and they deeply resent the proposal that some of the more fortunate tenants should now take those homes permanently out of the reach of the less well-off. I say "Hear, hear" to that. That is what I find so distressing about the Bill.
In conclusion, I accept that anomalies have arisen under the 1980 Act. For instance, the position of local authority homes on long leasehold and unacceptable service charges should perhaps be dealt with. Charitable housing associations, however, were set up by amateurs—ordinary people who were greatly concerned at the shortage of accommodation for their children and their friends' children and wished to help to solve the problem. Those people have given up vast amounts of their own time and spent a great deal of their own money—only to see the results of their work sold off. That was not the object. That is why I support the Opposition view and I plead with the Government to change their mind. It is diabolical that the Government should now try to undo the work of so many people in the voluntary sector. We hear enough from the Government about the need to support voluntary effort, but they are now literally taking the ground from under those people's feet and I bitterly resent that.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) will forgive me if I do not follow him too far down the road that he has signposted. I will, however, pursue him into one area. He expressed concern at the amount of mortgage repayment that his constituents were likely to make. I am sure, therefore, that he will join me in applauding the Government's economic policies, which have resulted in a fall in interest rates and a fall in the amount of mortgage payments being made.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) made a forceful speech. He said that the number of houses available to rent was the lowest in 50 years. I understand his genuine concern about that, having served with him on the Select Committee on the Environment. It is fair to say, however, that if the right to buy had not existed many of the people who exercised that right would have remained tenants for ever. There is no real reduction in the housing stock.

Mr. Freeson: However one views the rightness or wrongness of this, until recently one sector of rented housing was losing about 100,000 properties per year, which was made good by the construction of at least that number in the public sector. Today, however, more than 200,000—almost a quarter of a million—rented dwellings in the private and public sectors are being lost every year, but only 30,000 to 35,000 are being built. Therefore, there is a major reduction and in 10 years' time hundreds of thousands fewer properties will be available for rent than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Pawsey: The right hon. Gentleman might care to reflect on the fact that if the Opposition had not been so dogmatic we might have seen many more private landlords in existence. Legislation introduced by the Opposition has almost driven private landlords into extinction and that is part of the problem that we face at present.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on an imaginative Bill. I am sure that the House will share my opinion. It is another excellent runner from the Heseltine-Stanley stable, and I do not doubt that it will prove to be another winner. The Government are rightly firmly committed to the principle of council house sales and the Bill merely takes us further down that road. It brings certain housing associations into the right-to-buy legislation. I know that there are many tenants of housing associations within my constituency who wish to purchase their homes. I have here a folder containing about 166 letters that have passed between me, my right hon. Friends, the Leicester housing association and my constituents. I have been arguing the case for house sales for over 18 months with that housing association, but despite my best endeavours not a single house has so far been sold.

Mr. Graham: Hear, hear.

Mr. Pawsey: I hear the hon. Gentleman agreeing. I trust that my constituents will also hear that clear expression of opinion. It is disgraceful that housing associations should be able to flout the declared wishes of the House when it passed legislation about two years ago.
I am aware that the Housing Act 1980 gives my right hon. Friend the power to intervene in cases where tenants have experienced difficulty in exercising the right to buy. When the Minister winds up I should like to hear how many times that right has been exercised and how soon thereafter tenants purchased the houses which were the subject of intervention.
The sale of houses in the ownership of local councils has done much to broaden the base of home ownership. At least 350,000 houses have now been sold. Tenants have expressed their clear desire to own their own home. Why should they be deprived of that right? A major criticism of the Opposition is that they intend to repeal the relevant legislation. I believe that to be both dogmatic and spiteful. No doubt it will be a major contributory factor to their losing the next general election. The council house and rent-paying public have expressed 350,000 times their belief that the present legislation is both necessary and desirable. This legislation will further advance that case.
If it is thought that I exaggerate, it is worth referring to "Labour's Programme 1982", which says:
We will relieve public landlords of any statutory obligation to sell, with effect from our first days in office.

Mr. Graham: Hear, hear.

Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear". In case hon. Members should feel that that is an isolated pronouncement, I shall quote from the National Executive Committee's policy statement:
The Labour Government should in its first days of office make an official announcement of its intention to end enforced sales. Legislation would then follow in a matter of weeks.
I hope that every council house tenant hears that clear and unequivocal threat to their rights. I have no doubt that they will know what to do when the appropriate time comes. It is a direct commitment by the Opposition to end council house sales.

Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman is repeating a canard that has already been voiced by the Government—that there is a clear commitment to stop council house sales. That is untrue. We intend to stop the compulsory sale of council houses and to leave a willing buyer and a willing seller, as there always is with a good contract.

Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted about that intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I should like to quote from the reference sheet that the hon. Gentleman will find in the Library. It says:
The Labour Opposition is vigorously opposed to the compulsory sale of council houses. 'Labour's Programme 1982' sets out Labour's policy on council house sales as follows. 'We will relieve public landlords of any statutory obligation to sell, with effect from our first days in office. Sales which have reached an advanced stage, comparable to exchange of contracts in a private purchase, … will be allowed to proceed'.
Not only have Opposition Members noted that passage, I am certain that council house tenants will hear what has been said in this House and will appreciate who really cares about council house tenants and their rights.
The Opposition are evidently suggesting that ordinary people cannot be trusted to look after themselves, be responsible for the roof over their heads or to have something of real value to pass on to their children. For them the State is evidently greater than the individual. They believe that council house tenants should always remain council house tenants. Once a tenant, always a tenant, is the Opposition's slogan.

Mr. Latham: We know from experience that most Labour-controlled councils will not sell a single house unless the law gives the tenant the right to buy.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. But official Opposition Members are not entirely alone. The Social Democratic Party apparently cannot make up its mind. It says:
We need to debate whether … the Right to Buy should remain a single national policy, or whether it should be up to local decision in the light of local housing needs.
It does not reach a conclusion.

Mr. Cartwright: The hon. Gentleman is quoting from a document that is somewhat out of date. If he quotes from the official statement, which was published in May he will find that our position is clear.

Mr. Pawsey: The Social Democratic Party changes its policies with regular monotony. The Social Democratic Party discussion paper on housing that I referred to was published in 1981. The Social Democratic Party changes its policies so often. It clearly shows considerable indecision. It might try to get an issue of this importance right first time.
I do not suggest that the Social Democratic Party is two-faced, but I believe that it is facing two ways. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) is taking mote. One of the things that might come out of this debate is a clear statement of intent from the Social Democratic Party. What does it intend to do about the right to buy? Will it keep it or scrap it? Will it be more socialist than democratic tonight? Will it say unequivocally that the right to buy is right? I look forward to hearing the contribution of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East.
The Bill does not go as far as some of us would like. The right to buy will not be available for those houses or

flats owned by charitable organisations before 1974, when the housing association grant was introduced. Neither will it be available where dwellings provided before 1974 have been repaired and improved subsequently with the aid of a housing association grant.
I welcome the fact that tenants of leasehold property will have the right to purchase a long lease of up to 125 years, dependent only on the length of time that the landlord's lease still has to run, and subject only to the landlord's leasehold interest being not less than 22 years in the case of houses and 50 years in the case of flats.
I am pleased that clause 5 renders void any attempt by unscrupulous local authority landlords to charge for the giving of the right to buy. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about private landlords?"] Private landlords are not mentioned in the Bill, for the reason already given by my right hon. Friend. It is a pity that Labour Members were not listening when my right hon. Friend spelt out the case in such comprehensive detail. Clearly, this legislation will stop an existing loophole, and it should therefore be welcome.
Schedule 3 protects tenants against unreasonable surcharges. That has been yet another method used by obstructive authorities to prevent the implementation of the right to buy.
Clause 17 amends the provisions governing sub-letting and the assignment of secure tenancies. I understand that certain local authorities, when agreeing to a transfer of tenancies, have made it conditional on the tenant not exercising the right to buy. That is disgraceful. It is wrong that such arrangements are made to prevent the tenant from purchasing the house into which he moves, and that is clearly contrary to the spirit of legislation passed in his House. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has incorporated the appropriate provision in the Bill.
Part II deals with building controls, and I shall listen with considerable interest to what my hon Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction says on this point. My understanding is that this part of the Bill had its origins in 1979 when the Secretary of State addressed the National House Building Council. He expressed proper concern that the existing system of building control in England and Wales was unwieldy, bureaucratic and unnecessarily costly and, above all, that there were widely differing interpretations of the regulations—so much so that they were consistent only in their inconsistency.
I am well aware that volume house builders such as Wimpey and Barratt can obtain an approval in one district but can receive a refusal on the same design in a neighbouring district. That is intolerable, and something must be done to resolve and simplify the situation. The proposals in the Bill will help builders. They will remove petty frustrations and help to keep costs down.
I understand that the Secretary of State will designate certain competent persons as approved inspectors able to provide certificates of approval. Those competent persons must possess professional qualifications, practical experience and be in possession of indemnity insurance. I appreciate that this definition encompasses architects, engineers and surveyors. Such a system has immediate attractions. Despite what Labour Members have said, it will result in less bureaucracy and time-wasting and will generally speed up matters in an industry where time is literally money. It will also reduce local government expenditure.
Evidently, however, no insurers have so far shown an interest in providing the appropriate indemnity to an


approved inspector. Without that safeguard, the proposed system will not work, because the approved inspector acting without insurance cover would become personally liable for any claims made against him and, at any date in the future, for any building defects that he should have prevented. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). It would be foolhardy for anyone to become an approved inspector without the appropriate insurance cover.
Should the approved inspector have a disagreement with the builder and decide to proceed no further, he can pass responsibility to the local authority, but there seems to be no provision in the Bill for the local authority to recoup any costs involved in that work. I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on that point.
I was a local councillor for about 21 years, and I am quite aware that at times local councils can be so bureaucratic as to be almost bloody-minded. I recognise the frustrations that are often felt by builders. But the present system has at least one principal benefit—it enjoys the confidence of the public, who recognise that local authorities are absolutely impartial and are not likely to approve a building that does not satisfy them. The present system, while undoubtedly requiring reform, at least ensures a high standard of safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) said that there were already many serious building failures under the present system and suggested that a change in the system need not necessarily be a change for the worse. Again, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this point.
It is the responsibility of the local authority to maintain a register of approved notices and certificates, but there is no reference in the Bill to a fee. Can a local authority recoup the costs involved in the maintenance of the register? Will a body be set up to authorise and supervise the approved inspectors? How large will that body be; what is it likely to cost; and how many inspectors are likely to be appointed to supervise building regulations in England and Wales?
I welcome the fact that the Bill continues the current exemptions from building control and extends them to local authority buildings as well as to
Buildings of such public bodies as are answerable either locally or through Ministers to Parliament".
I note that such bodies will be able to give such relaxation to the controls as they believe to be appropriate. I have no doubt that they will discharge that duty responsibly, and I have no doubt that that will be to the public good.
Not surprisingly, some local authorities and professional bodies are worried about some of the provisions in parts II and III, but I am sure that those points will have already occurred to the Minister and that he will be able to reassure those local authorities and professional bodies when he winds up. I wish the Bill well and look forward to its enactment.

Mr. David Winnick: During my remarks I shall respond to several points arising from the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey). However, I do not intend to speak about the building control regulations in part II. Instead, I entirely endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) and agree with the reservations expressed by some Conservative Members.
We should be debating a Bill to deal with the formidable housing crisis now facing us. The number of council dwellings now being built is lower than at any time since the 1920s, and there is a growing waiting list of people desperately in need of rented accommodation.
The hon. Member for Rugby said that certain Labour Party remarks should be publicised. One of the remarks that we shall continue to publicise is that in the last two or three years council tenants have been unjustly treated and have faced rent increases of about 117 per cent., which is more than double the increase in the retail price index in the same period. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) will not agree with me, but that is why the Opposition maintain and the Labour candidate in Rugby will argue that there should be a rent freeze. The forthcoming rent increase is utterly unjustified in view of what has been happening to council tenants.
Rents have not increased so much simply to reduce the central Government subsidy, although that has been the main reason. The Minister for Housing and Construction almost boasts about another reason—the effort to encourage more and more tenants to buy their own homes. He says effectively that it is just as costly to rent as it is to buy. That is because of the exorbitant rent increases that central Government have virtually imposed during the past two or three years. Instead of taking those measures that should have been taken, we have this insignificant Bill that will do nothing to help people in housing need.
I do not want to be uncharitable about the Secretary of State, but no Secretary of State in any post-war Government has done as much harm to housing as the present one. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said, he has done his utmost substantially to reduce the number of available rented dwellings. The properties that are now being sold off to tenants are not being replaced. We are experiencing the lowest number of council house starts since the 1920s. Not content with the harm that is undoubtedly being done to the rented sector, Ministers have now decided that the charitable housing groups—which were originally excluded from the earlier legislation—must take their turn.
Ministers and Conservative Members maintain—the hon. Member for Rugby has just done so—that a major principle is involved. That principle is the sitting tenant's right to buy. They seem to want us to believe that that is one of the most important principles in housing. The question that must inevitably follow, and which I asked the Secretary of State, is why, if there is such a principle and if it is so important for sitting tenants to buy, should private tenants be excluded? Surely they, too, should enjoy the right to buy. Needless to say, there is no mention of private tenants in the present legislation.
Mr. Arthur Johnston, the chairman of the Federation of Private Residents' Associations, in a letter to The Times that appeared on Saturday, wrote:
There are thousands of private tenants, particularly in inner London, who would welcome the opportunity to purchase their flats … Why should private tenants not have the same rights as council tenants?
That is an interesting question.
It should also be borne in mind that the council dwellings that are being sold off are those that the Select Committee on the Environment, of which the hon. Member for Rugby was briefly a member, warned about in its report last year. It said—this should come as no surprise—that the type of council dwellings that are likely


to be sold off are those with gardens in the better areas. In the main, there has been no queue of tenants of multi-storey flats wanting to purchase. Only the better council housing stock has been sold off. All the evidence points in that direction.
I should be interested to know how many flats have been sold to council tenants. Leaving aside those who could not buy, I imagine that it is very few. Most of those who can buy have already done so. Many of those who see or write to us about housing problems are council tenants. Their problem is not so much that they cannot buy, as that they want to transfer to houses with gardens. It must be obvious that if one sells off the better council housing stock and it is not replaced—we know about the low level of council house starts—people living in multi-storey flats who have children and who may be desperate to move into houses with gardens must wait much longer.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman's argument is true that people do not wish to buy flats and that if a council were happy to sell them people would not move in, how does he explain why Greenwich council, which is in my constituency, refused to sell flats for many months, although it agreed to sell houses?

Mr. Winnick: Irrespective of what might have been happening in Greenwich, it is true nationally that very few tenants of flats have wanted to buy them. Perhaps the Minister could tell me how many of the properties which have been sold as a result of the 1980 legislation have been houses, how many have been flats and, especially, how many have been in multi-storey blocks. Few tenants who live on the eighth or twelfth floor of a multi-storey block of flats have any desire to buy their flats, even if they were able to do so, and there were no legal difficulties in doing so.
About 80,000 tenanted houses owned by charitable housing associations are affected by the Bill. It is important not to overlook the fact that the Government are forcing independent organisations to carry out policies against their wishes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West made that point. When discussing centralised Government and control, that is a good illustration of a Government who seem to be insensitive to the wishes of the affected housing groups. Many of those charitable housing groups have existed for a long time. As one would expect, most of those organisations have simply provided accommodation for today's housing victims. But they are also concerned with tomorrow's homeless. They provide accommodation for those who cannot find local authority accommodation and are unable to buy their own homes.
Neither the Minister nor any of his hon. Friends told us which housing associations and charitable organisations support the Bill. I have heard of none. Surely it is understandable that they should be allowed to continue to conduct their affairs properly. They do not want to be forced by the Government to do something that they believe is not right. It is as simple as that. Once dwellings are sold off to tenants, they are gone for good.
The Caldmore housing association is in my borough. It is a community-based housing association that offers homes to those in need, including single parents, the unemployed, battered women and their children and ethnic

minorities. It has approximately 770 properties. Because of difficulties arising from cuts in public spending and because of local housing need and other factors, the association has had to close its waiting list. It has 400 people on that list. The director wrote to me as follows:
If Housing Associations are now to lose properties through sales, how will the growing army of people without choice ever find homes to rent? Whatever else is said, the fact remains that demand for rented accommodation continues to grow.
It is understandable that such a genuine charitable housing association that has operated for some time feels threatened, especially as the Bill will mainly affect properties built since 1974.
It has been argued that the Labour Party is somehow opposed to owner-occupation. That is far from true. It was a Labour Government who, in the 1960s, introduced the option mortgage scheme which has enabled many people to become owner-occupiers. Other Labour Government schemes have also enabled people to become owner-occupiers. I do not know why the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) shakes his head. The hon. Gentleman will not deny, I am sure, that the option mortgage scheme was the creation of the Labour Government in the 1960s.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman argues that the option mortgage scheme is enough. It is clearly not enough. Many of my constituents who wish to buy their homes were not allowed to do so by the Greenwich council, irrespective of the existence of the option mortgage scheme.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is not disagreeing with my contention that the Labour Party, far from being opposed to owner-occupation, has tried in Government to increase the numbers of owner-occupiers. We want people on ordinary incomes, if they so wish, to become owner-occupiers. There is no disagreement.
Most hon. Members are owner-occupiers. No one who wishes to become an owner-occupier should be excluded. However, surely it is better that those who live in the public rented sector, and certainly in charitable housing association property, if they have the means to become owner-occupiers, should go into the private market and receive assistance through the option mortgage scheme or in other ways and thereby release accommodation for those in need. That is surely better than the existing tenant buying the property in which he lives and so making someone desperately in need of accommodation wait that much longer. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition. The difference is not over owner-occupation.
The Opposition believe that local authorities and housing associations, including charitable ones, should have the choice of deciding how they pursue their policy. The Government have forced compulsory sales upon local authorities. Now they are applying that policy to charitable housing groups. It is surely for those organisations and groups to decide how they should proceed. This is another illustration of Government dogma. They have not listened to those in local authorities and charitable housing associations who know about housing need and housing difficulties.
It is all very well Conservative Members being complacent over the sale of council dwellings and charitable housing association properties. There remain a large number of people whose only hope of finding


adequate and secure accommodation is through the local authority or a genuine housing association. They do not have the means to become owner-occupiers. In most cases, they do not wish to become owner-occupiers. Not a word about their needs has been heard from the Secretary of State or Conservative Members.
It is shocking that in the Britain of the 1980s families should be living in squalid and difficult accommodation comprising one or two rooms. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) will say that the privately rented sector can provide the answers. I do not believe so. The hon. Gentleman may be right. I do not believe, however, that there is any evidence to show that the private rented sector can supply the accommodation that is so desperately needed. At the end of the day, those in desperate need can be assisted only by local authority housing or by genuine housing associations providing the necessary dwellings.
The Government have substantially reduced the rented sector. If the Bill is approved, those in need and whose desire for accommodation is great will stay longer out in the cold without secure and proper accommodation.

Mr. John Heddle: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has stated two myths. The first is that building an increasing number of council houses will reduce the council house waiting list. History does not support that contention. The second myth is that those on council house waiting lists want the right to rent a council house. Of course, they want the right to rent, but not necessarily the right to rent from the council. They would be equally prepared to rent from the voluntary housing movement or the private sector.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North, whose constituency adjoins mine, has made the same speech in each debate on housing since the general election in May 1979. Not once has the hon. Gentleman come up with an original or constructive solution to the housing problems. These problems are deeply embedded in the mongrel dogma of the past. The hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that his own authority has rent arrears of between £2 million and £3 million.
Like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), I am a member of the board of management of a housing association, the United Kingdom housing trust. Like him, I am a consultant to a firm of chartered surveyors with a nation-wide practice. Like him, the consultancy is with a firm of valuation surveyors and not building surveyors. I have therefore no professional or material interest in part II of the Bill.
I wish to direct my attention to part I of the Bill. The debate affords hon. Members the opportunity to put under the parliamentary microscope the policies of the other parties. I look forward with interest to hearing the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright). I imagine that he will confirm that his party is in favour of the sale of council houses in the right circumstances. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I believe that the Social Democratic Party agrees with the Conservative Party. We have adopted the philosophy over many years that the sale of council houses breaks down the "them and us" attitude on council estates. It breaks down the attitude of two nations. It breaks down the social segregation that the Government

inherited from the mongrel dogma of the Labour Government so excellently propounded by the hon. Member for Walsall, North.
I hope that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East will be able to confirm that the Social Democratic Party differs in this, as it does, no doubt, in other respects, from its Liberal alliance partners. I understand that the Liberal Party is opposed to the compulsory sale of council houses. As there is no hon. Member representing the Liberal Party in the Chamber at the moment, I am unable to receive direct confirmation of that.
One thing of which the House can be absolutely certain is that the Labour Party wishes to deny what the majority of people put above all things, which is the right to own their own home. Scratch below the surface of any Marxist or any fully paid-up member of the Militant Tendency and one will find two things. First—

Mr. Allan Roberts: Blood.

Mr. Heddle: Red blood—and two other things. If those people were honest, they would admit that they would love their son or daughter to win a scholarship to the local grammar school, but they are happy to troop into the polling booths at general and local elections and vote against the continuance of grammar schools. The second thing that they would love to have is the opportunity to own their own homes and to pass on the fruits of their life's labours to their children in years to come. However, at general and local elections they will troop into the polling booths and vote against that basic aim, ambition and aspiration of most working people. Therein lies the two-faced attitude of the Labour Party.
The Labour Party was happy to put in its last general election manifesto the fact that it seeks to bring about a fundamental change in this country's wealth in favour of working people. What better way is there to bring about a redistribution of wealth than by selling council houses? By selling council houses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) eloquently said, one is unlocking the wealth that is locked up in bricks and mortar, which is reinvested and redistributed to provide homes for those in genuine need—the elderly, the disabled and those who really need the right to rent.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is saying that by selling council houses we are releasing new resources in order to build for those who really are in need. Will he remind the House how many council houses a local authority must sell to build just one new house? Has he read the Select Committee's evidence on that?

Mr. Heddle: I have read the Select Committee's evidence. I am now a member of the Select Committee. As the hon. Lady knows, a large element of the cost of providing a new home is the cost of the land. One thing that the Government have done that no previous Government have done is to encourage local authorities sitting on urban derelict land, which local authority after local authority and Labour Governments have ignored in the past—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) referred to that—to do something about the state of that land. That is the plight of the inner cities. There is urban desolation in inner cities because they have no soul. The people who live in them have no feeling of belonging or of living in a community. That is because they have no financial stake in the area in which they live.

Mrs. Taylor: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has said about the availability of land. I hope that he realises that when the Government force charitable housing trusts to sell prime homes in inner cities the social mix will be reduced in those areas. Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that I asked him? How many council houses must a local authority sell to pay for one new home, taking into account all the discounts and everything else on which he says he has the information?

Mr. Heddle: I am delighted to do so. I shall take the hon. Lady quickly through the cost—

Mrs. Taylor: Give the figure.

Mr. Heddle: I shall give the figure. I ask the hon. Lady to contradict me, if she chooses, from her own experience. The cost is between £12,000 and £15,000, because the Government have reduced the housing cost yardstick. They have abolished the Parker Morris standards and have enabled local authorities to build realistically on figures that will justify an economic rent.

Mrs. Taylor: Give the figure.

Mr. Heddle: I have just done so. One cannot equate the number of houses that must be sold to provide a new council house because each house sold depends upon the amount of discount offered, which depends on the length of time the secure tenant has been in occupation. The hon. Lady is really asking how long is a piece of string.
I disagree with the provisions in the Bill on shared purchase. The principle of shared purchase is right, but the Bill proposes that when a local authority tenant buys under the shared purchase provisions he or she must buy first at a stake of 50 per cent. and then in tranches of 12½ per cent. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction whether there could be some flexibility in that arrangement. What is the argument against one of my constituents who, for reasons of his own, wishes initially to acquire only 25 per cent. and then 12½ per cent. and another 12½ per cent. until ultimately, when his job prospects improve and he is promoted, he can acquire the full 100 per cent?
The Bill also provides for the right of Service men to acquire their own property. At the moment the period during which someone was a member of the Armed Forces is taken into account when his entitlement to discount is calculated but not when the right to buy is established. The Bill proposes that all periods spent as a member of the Armed Forces will count for the purposes of qualifying that person for the right to buy and for discount. That will be welcome to many of my constituents serving in the Staffordshire regiment, who are stationed at the Whittington barracks in my constituency.
I applaud the fact that the Secretary of State is taking powers in the Bill to act swiftly against any local authority that discriminates against a secure tenant who wishes to exercise his or her right to buy. Unfortunately, since the Housing Act 1980 some local authorities, mostly Labour controlled, have done their best to frustrate the wishes of decent law-abiding tenants to exercise their right to buy not only by imposing onerous conditions and unbearable service charges, to which the Bill refers, but in more subtle ways. Such local authorities push problem tenants into houses next door to those people. Repairs are delayed. The local authority says that because those people have

exercised the right to buy it will make life as difficult as possible by not carrying out repairs to which they are entitled.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acts swiftly when a tenant from, for example, Norwich or St. Helens reports to him that the local authority has taken two years to process his application to buy. I am sorry that the Bill does not give the Secretary of State greater powers, for example when a local authority takes three or four months to process a right-to-buy application or the district valuer takes three months to carry out the inspection and then a further two months to submit his valuation report to the local authority.
My right hon. Friend should have greater powers to enable those sales to proceed at the pace at which they would proceed if they were in the hands of suitably qualified lawyers and valuers in the private sector. My hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that the Housing Act 1980 provides for local authorities to pass out the legal and professional work to the private sector. However, the Act gives the local authority the discretion to do so. If the local authority has not processed the right-to-buy application within a specific period and the district valuer has not prepared his report and valuation and if, subsequent to receiving the report and valuation, the local authority does not make an offer within a specific period, my right hon. Friend should have the power to take over that function, instruct the private sector and enable the sale to proceed swiftly.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that the officers of local authorities are acting improperly and are not fulfilling their statutory duties as laid down. That is not so. He has made an unfair attack on both assessors and the legal profession.

Mr. Heddle: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention, because he has given me the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a case—I shall be bringing it to the attention of the House in an Adjournment debate tonight—handled recently by the local government ombudsman. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) is nodding his head, because he knows about the case to which I am about to refer, although I have not had the opportunity to remind him or my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) about it.
There is a classic case in the files of the local government ombudsman, who was invited by a secure tenant in Mid-Bedfordshire to examine the behaviour of a local authority which took two years to process the right-to-buy application. During that time the value of the council house that the tenant wished to buy increased by £1,400. The ombudsman recommended that the local authority should reduce the price by that sum. However, because the powers of the ombudsman are so limited, the local authority chose to take no action and the secure tenant had to pay £1,400 more for the property than he would otherwise have done. I hope that that satisfactorily answers the point made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg).

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has referred to only one case that has been referred to the local government ombudsman. That is a rather limited number of people with whom he can find fault. The hon. Gentleman instead chose to make a general attack on both assessors and on members of the legal profession employed in local


authorities. I am not satisfied that his argument is sustained by the example of one reference to the local government ombudsman.

Mr. Heddle: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is seeking to pursue the point because the Opposition Benches are fairly bare or because he has a genuine interest in the matter. I am happy to acquaint the hon. Gentleman with two further cases. One is set out in a letter from Mrs. P. M. Garrett of 2 Christchurch Gardens, Lichfield, dated 11 November. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Heddle,
Reference to the purchase of our council house, the District Valuer called on Monday October 18th, we have still not received a value.
That was five weeks ago.
I know we are not the only tenants hoping to purchase but four full weeks have passed.
Contrary to Mr. Meehan's belief in his letter to you dated 13th October"—
Mr. Meehan acts for the local authority in question—
we were not immediately telephoned … the only call we received was in answer to my own call to them to find out if Mr. Meehan had received my letter which was posted two full weeks previous.
We would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in our problem.
If the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East would like me to bring to his notice a further instance, I refer to the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. K. M. Brough. Their right-to-buy application was received by their Labour-controlled local authority on 31 March 1981. The right to buy was accepted by the council on 15 April 1981, two weeks later. The district valuer was instructed on 1 June—six weeks later. The local authority says that
the reason for the dalay between acknowledging the right to buy and instructing the District Valuer was due to the volume of applications being dealt with at that time.
Had the local authority passed the work to the private sector, the application could probably have been dealt with by return of post.
The district valuer's report was received on 5 August, nine weeks afer receiving the instruction. The local authority said:
You will recall that the District Valuer had similar problems in dealing with the volume of applications at that time.
On 7 October, eight weeks later, six months after the tenant first submitted his application to buy under the Housing Act 1980, a formal offer was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Brough. That is why I have asked the Minister to consider whether the Bill is a little lenient with recalcitrant local authorities, and whether further teeth can be given to the Bill to ensure that ordinary working people and their families can exercise their democratic rights with expedition and not be frustrated by local authorities which are, like the hon. Member for Walsall, North, opposed wholeheartedly, root and branch, to the principle of extending wealth as far and as broadly as possible to as many working people and their families as possible.
A number of local authorities, when they have allowed their tenants to exercise their right to buy, have offered the tenants mortgage finance. Interest rates have fallen far and encouragingly in the past few months and are, we think, set to fall still further. However, tenants who have taken advantage of local authority mortgages are now paying 2½ per cent. more than they would if they had taken out a mortgage with a building society.
On a mortgage of £15,000 over 25 years, that means that the local authority mortgagor is paying £21 a month

more than he would if he had taken out his mortgage with a building society. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister are doing all that they cart to encourage local authorities to encourage their borrowers and former tenants to transfer their mortgages to building societies, but more needs to be done.
Much has been made of the potential that must exist in the third arm of housing—the private rented sector—to pick up and satisfy the demand that still exists and which local authorities cannot cope with. We have heard much about the plight of the homeless. It is right that the House should consider this matter seriously and responsibly. We have homeless people largely because in protecting tenants against realistic rents, successive Governments have destroyed the market for private rented property. Today, barely 3 per cent. of all houses are privately let. No one in his senses would be a landlord, because artificially low rents and excessive protection for tenants have made house letting a game that no prudent investor would become involved in.
Shelter is the voluntary housing organisation that takes an interest in these matters. A leader in the Sunday Express says that Shelter states that
house-building has fallen to its lowest peacetime level since the First World War. A major reason for this is that one whole segment of housing, which represented 85 per cent. of homes before that war, has been eliminated.
For 60 years, politicians bought votes by keeping down rents by law. Landlords could not afford to repair houses so they fell into decay and, of course, none were built to let. Now we are paying the price of politically motivated meddling with the free market.
The Government have made significant strides since May 1979 to redress that imbalance by introducing council house sales, half and half schemes and improvement for sale, by introducing assured tenancies, shorthold tenancies, the tenants' charter and the computerised tenants' exchange scheme, by share purchase and by compelling local authorities to compile land registers to produce the land to build the homes. The Government have done more for the hopes and aspirations of more working people and their families than the Labour Government ever did. I commend the Bill to the House. It has my wholehearted support.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I am glad to speak after the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle), because he is obviously in as great a housing wonderland as the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman spoke a lot of housing twaddle, as I hope to demonstrate.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth and other hon. Members have suggested that the Labour Party is in favour of the State and against the individual, because it opposes the right to buy. I cannot remember any defence of charitable housing associations in "Das Kapital". I am sure that Andropov, let alone Stalin, could not have done a better job of destroying local government democracy and freedom than the Secretary of State. I cannot understand how we are supposed to be against the individual when we attack State interference in the rights of charitable housing associations and democratically elected local authorities.
I do not represent any housing association and I am not an adviser or consultant to any firms of architects or chartered accountants. The only interest that I have to declare is that I live in a house and represent an area in


which the waiting list is growing dramatically and homelessness is increasing. In inner city Bootle and Litherland not 3 per cent. or 9 per cent., but 48 per cent. of the properties are owned by private landlords. The conditions that my constituents have to suffer and the harassment and disregard of their needs by those private landlands have to be seen to be believed.
I used to be chairman of the housing committee for the city of Manchester. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) will mention one of the developments to which I shall refer. I had been chairman for about three weeks only when the director of housing told me that he had just received a telephone call from a lady who said that a donkey was going past her front window. I asked "What is wrong with that?" He replied "She lives on the eighth floor." I asked "What have you done about it?" He said "We sent a mental health visitor to see her. A mental health visitor from the social services department was interviewing the lady when a donkey went past the window." I asked "What is happening?" The director of housing said "The man at the end of the deck is keeping a donkey in the back room during the day and is bedding it down at night in the well of the lift shaft." I asked "What are you doing about it?" He replied "We have got the woman a transfer, and the donkey is quite happy."
The problem is that there are no longer any houses to which to transfer people. They are all being sold. Those living in such accommodation do not want to buy, because they want to live in the very houses that the Government are forcing councils to sell. When I became the candidate for Bootle and attended my first advice bureau, my first case involved a housing problem. A woman said to me "I've got a problem." I said "What is it?" She said "It's about my roof." I asked her "What's wrong with it?" She said "I want one." That is the crux of the matter. She did not say that she wanted to buy a house or that she wanted share ownership. She said that she wanted not an assured tenancy, but a roof. The Government's proposals do not provide one extra roof. It is Government by housing gimmick.
The Government's proposals are unbelievable—for example, shared ownership. If someone cannot afford to buy his house, he is supposed to buy part of it—first the lavatory, and then the kitchen. It seems to be suggested that someone should buy half the house, pay a mortgage and rent the other half. However, there is a catch. The person who buys one half will not get repairs done on the other half. If he buys the front door, the council will not paint the back door. If he buys the back door, it will not paint the front door.
Have hon. Members ever tried to sell half a house? Sometimes people may want to move suddenly—for example, because of a death in the family. Have hon. Members ever tried to get a transfer out of half a house? Shared ownership schemes will not work, because they cannot work. It is the worst type of gimmick.
The Housing Act 1980 is amazing. For the purpose of buying a council house jointly with members of a family it defines "a family". Under that Act, a tenant can join as many as three members of his family to buy the house. They are entitled, in law, to a joint mortgage. It is amazing

how far the Government will go to ensure that the public rented sector is destroyed and that the best houses are sold. The Government define "family" in that Act as follows:
A person is a member of another's family within the meaning of this Chapter if he is his spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece; treating—

(a) any relationship by marriage as a relationship by blood, any relationship of the half blood as a relationship of the whole blood and the stepchild of any person as his child; and
(b) an illegitimate person as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father or if they live together as husband and wife."

The provision includes everybody except the goldfish and the budgie. It should be sent to the Home Secretary and enshrined in immigration legislation. However, the Government have double standards.
Can hon. Members imagine applying to buy half a house under the Bill? Let us imagine that one tenant, with three members of his family, buys half the house. Let us also imagine that he is the tenant of one half of the house and that three members of the family own the other half of the house. The tenant may have a row with one of the other members of his family. Does he have a right to ask that member to leave the half of which he is the tenant, which is rented? There is a legal and bureaucratic quagmire. Housing departments, already overworked because of Government-imposed staff cuts, will have to deal with such problems.
Perhaps I can draw a picture of a Department of the Environment shop run by the Conservatives. It will have advertisements saying "10, 20 or 50 per cent. off. Closing down sale." The Government are approaching a general election and they are offering give-away goodies. They are trying to force charitable housing associations to sell their houses to sitting tenants. What the Government are doing to the housing association movement is a scandal. We are witnessing the enforced sale of housing association properties.
I have an example from my area of the type of thing that happens when organisations that are set up as charitable bodies to build for rent for those in need are forced or cajoled to carry out a function for which they were not designed. I refer to selling houses to sitting tenants, building houses for sale and becoming involved in equity sharing schemes.
Merseyside Improved Houses has become involved in building prestige flats. There is growing concern whether MIH will be able to sell the prestige flats that it has been building in the past year in Formby, next to my constituency. Sefton, the local authority that covers my constituency, has loaned MIH over £750,000 to build the luxury block of flats. The flats in Formby are situated in Witchard Lane and consist of 28 two-bedroomed flats. The money has been lent from the capital receipts account of Sefton council. The council has kept that money from the sale of land and council houses. It hopes that the loan will be repaid when the association has sold the leases on those flats to those over retirement age.
I am referring to a charitable housing association that is supposed to be meeting need. The publicity by Ball and Percival, the estate agents handling the sale, shows that the leases are being sold at an average price of over £25,500, with public money contributing to that sale. The brochure states that the total cost of the scheme has been reduced by a Government grant of 30 per cent. Each flat is


therefore being offered at 30 per cent. less than the cost of construction. It seems incredible that other developers are able to build flats more cheaply and still make a profit.
Leasehold schemes for the elderly are part of the Government's project to provide accommodation for those of retirement age. At those prices, it is certainly not accommodation for those in need. It is claimed that accommodation will be provided for those with limited financial resources who will benefit from selling a house that has become too large and expensive to maintain. The Government subsidy of 30 per cent. was meant to bring the cost of the flats to below 30 per cent. of the market value of similar accommodation in the area and therefore to provide decent accommodation for those who would otherwise be unable to afford it. That patently has not happened.
In addition to the cost of purchasing the lease, residents will be required to pay £250 each towards a sinking fund for future capital expenditure and will be required to pay the association in excess of £30 a month for running costs. Anyone who knows about the prices of property in Formby will know that £25,000 is high, even by Formby standards, and this figure is 30 per cent. less than the actual building cost. It is clear, therefore, that the cost of building each of these flats is in excess of £34,000.
A number of questions should be asked, let alone why a housing association set up to acquire, build and improve houses for rent got involved in the first place. First, will Merseyside Improved Houses be able to resell the flats and repay the money that it borrowed from Sefton ratepayers? It looks doubtful at the moment. Secondly, what is happening to the £60,000 that the association received from a London-based charity towards the cost of this scheme? Perhaps the Minister will say something about charitable moneys going towards schemes where compulsory sales are involved. Thirdly, why has it cost Merseyside Improved Houses so much to build these flats when other flats are being sold by builders in the area for less than MIH is charging, even with its 30 per cent. Government grant? Fourthly, why did Sefton council and MIH go ahead when they were told, even by the housing corporation, that the scheme was not vital? Was it pressure from the Government to become involved in such schemes because money was not being provided for building to rent?
That is just one example of how things get out of hand when charitable housing associations get involved in matters for which they were not intended. That is what the Bill will do to housing associations throughout the country. All that housing associations have been forced, against their will, to do by the Government will rebound in many areas on the housing associations and on the Government.
I believe that to some extent the housing association movement, charitable or otherwise, is part of the public rented sector, because 74 have received grants. The next Labour Government will have a duty to expand the movement's role in the traditional direction for which it was set up—the provision of accommodation to rent. To that end, the housing association movement needs to be democratised. It should be made more accountable by legislation to the tenants who rent from the housing associations and the people of the areas in which housing associations are active. Many of these housing associations are becoming large. That may be one reason for the Government's desire to force them to sell. For

example, the MIH is bigger now than some of the local authorities—both in the money that it spends and in its housing activity in Merseyside. It operates in almost every district council area in Merseyside. Therefore, we need to legislate to democratise the housing association movement.
The Merseyside Improved Houses committee is a self-perpetuating oligarchy. It is not elected. Tenants have no say in who serves on it. When housing associations get large without any accountability, they become involved in unacceptable and undesirable activities.
Merseyside Improved Houses recently purchased Nos. 51 and 53 Merton Road, Bootle, from Sefton council. It plans to use the two houses to provide office accommodation for its staff in Bootle. The council sold the building to MIH for £50,000. At present the Bootle office of MIH is in Hawthorn Road, where about 20 members of staff are accommodated in extremely comfortable, fully carpeted, centrally-heated surroundings. It has spent more that £60,000 on the existing offices in Hawthorn Road during the past five years. The move to the new offices in Merton Road is part of a trend. The association has now spent more than £250,000 on its offices in Liverpool, Birkenhead and St. Helens during the past three years. When completed, its Bootle offices in Merton Road are expected to have cost more than £150,000—£50,000 to buy the properties and £100,000 to convert them into office accommodation.
Money for improving houses in the Bootle area is limited. Therefore, it is time that this aspect of the association's spending was fully investigated. What is wrong with the offices in Hawthorn Road? I go there regularly. Nothing seems to be wrong with them. How can MIH justify spending £100,000 on two houses in Merton Road, which the district valuer valued at £50,000? Will the district valuer say that the property is worth £150,000 when it is complete? I doubt that. Has MIH received Government permission to spend that money? Would not the money be better spent on Hartford Road, Field Road and the housing action areas in my constituency where MIH says that it cannot improve houses because of lack of funds? That is one example of what happens when a housing association gets large without accountability.
I am a great believer in the housing association movement and the Housing Corporation being used to ensure that houses are built for rent for people in need in areas where local authorities such as Sefton—usually Conservative-controlled—refuse to build council houses to meet the needs of those on the ever-growing waiting lists. It is because of my desire to see the housing association movement accepted by the Labour Party as an instrument of expansion of its housing programme after the next election that I have raised the subject of MIH, which in the past had a good reputation for acquiring and building properties to rent. I hope that it will get back on the right lines, and that it will not listen to the Government's pleas and blackmail to follow paths that are not part of its traditional role.
The Bill is part of a total Government strategy on housing. That was given away by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth when he talked about the private rented sector and the need for it to be revitalised. The 1980 Act was not a tenant's charter; it was a landlord's charter. It was legislation to weaken Labour Government Rent Acts, to get rid of security of tenure in subtle ways, and to allow landlords to charge more for the properties that


they are renting to tenants. It was an attempt to revitalise the private rented sector. However, one can only revitalise the private rented sector by making people dependent on the private landlord, and people will be dependent on the private landlord only if they cannot gain access to one of the other sectors. So part of the strategy of pushing people on the market and depending on the private landlord is to destroy the public rented sector.

Mr. Heddle: As the hon. Gentleman referred to my speech, I want to ask him one question. When he talks about the private rented sector, does he agree that there is a role for a third arm? Those were the words that I used. Does he agree that there is a role for the building society movement? The 1980 Housing Act gave that movement the ability to provide homes to let, particularly in inner cities and dockland areas. The Abbey National building society, the Woolwich Equitable, and one or two others have done so.

Mr. Roberts: I am not aware of any private developers, building societies, or anyone else coming into inner city areas and building without a subsidy, direct or indirect, from local or central Government. In inner Liverpool, the land is being virtually given away to Wimpeys and Barratts. They are being subsidised to build houses for sale. Public subsidies are contributing to their profits. It is only when there are public subsidies or public intervention of some kind that the private sector comes near the inner city areas. It does not do so of its own volition.
I do not accept that there is a role for the third arm, if the third arm is meant to be the private landlord. I rejoice in the demise of the private landlord, and I hope that it will long continue. I believe that the next Labour Government will introduce policies to municipalise the private rented sector, so that it will slowly disappear.
An example is L. I. Reuben and Company Limited. Mr. Reuben is a large landlord. He has his offices on the third floor of Hepworth Chambers, 4 Church Street, Liverpool. He is a Rachman-type slum landlord. He lives in a mansion in Manchester, but he owns hundreds of slum properties in Merseyside, many of them in my constituency. It is scandalous that my constituents and others throughout Merseyside should suffer at the hands of this classic example of a private landlord. Mr. Reuben behaves in a fraudulent manner. He harasses tenants. He avoids his landlord's responsibilities for repair under section 32 of the Housing Act 1961, which was passed by a Conservative Government.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I know of the case purely and simply from watching television. It was interesting that when the broadcasting authorities tried to interview him, he refused. We saw a picture of him covering his face and refusing to be interviewed. He has plenty to hide.

Mr. Roberts: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. What the television programme did not describe was the illegal nature of Mr. Reuben's activities and the contracts that he uses to con my constituents and others in housing need in Liverpool. The fact that people are dependent on such landlords shows what a shortage of accommodation there is on Merseyside and also illustrates the need for more council houses.

Mr. Barry Porter: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I am well acquainted with the affairs and activities of Mr. Reuben. However, one must be fair to him. What he was doing was not illegal. He sold houses on a drip mortgage scheme to avoid an obligation as a landlord under the rent Acts. Is it not also fair to say that he has agreed to abandon that course of action as a result of pressure from Liverpool city council?

Mr. Roberts: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Mr. Reuben's activities were illegal and contravened the 1961 and 1980 legislation. Nor do I accept that Mr. Reuben is keeping to certain undertakings which he gave to Liverpool city council. He seems to be continuing exactly as he did before—conning people into renting accommodation in the belief that they are buying it or will have the opportunity to buy some other property.
As far as I am aware, Mr. Reuben advertises in the "For rent" section of the Liverpool Echo. People go along to see him and he gives them a document, a copy of which I have here. It states:
Unique opportunity to acquire a self-contained flat now and, if you want, a house in 18 months' time. Selected applicants will be granted early occupation of a self-contained flat on paying a deposit of £30, one calendar month's repayment, the appropriate administration fee of £12·50 and a certain amount for contribution towards property insurance. When 18 monthly payments have been made, or at any time thereafter, applicants have a choice of doing one of three things: they can return the keys, buy the flat or continue to buy it"—
although when it comes to it they cannot—or they can move out and buy one of Mr. Reuben's houses.
Mr. Reuben then gets the applicant to sign a contract. It is that which, unlike the television programme, I consider to be illegal. It is a contract neither to purchase nor to rent. A property can be occupied under British housing legislation only by an owner, a tenant or a licensee. This is not a licence, so it is either a contract to purchase or a contract to rent. If it is a contract to purchase, the purchaser can deal with the property as his own in law, subject only to paying the purchase price as and when the instalments are due. All the clauses here about liability for repairs, which Mr. Reuben uses as a means of getting applicants to pay more money, even making them liable on eviction, are illegal.
If this is a rental agreement, the premium that is being sought is illegal under the Housing Act 1980. In any case, under this contract a vendor cannot in law impose conditions as to guarantors, which is what happens. If it is a contract it is defective because it refers to restrictive covenants which are not identified.
In clause 5 of the contract a premium is again demanded under the guise of an insurance premium of £150 per annum. That is illegal under the Housing Act. It is defective in other ways because it calls upon the purchaser to keep the property in good order and to leave it so on any cancellation of the contract. However, the contract cannot be cancelled; only set aside. It is an illegal contract. My advice to people who are being conned by Mr. Reuben is to take action under the housing Acts.
I have here the kind of letter that Mr. Reuben writes to tenants and ex-tenants. This is how he deals with them. It reads like one of Joe Maplin's letters to his holiday camp manager. The letter is from L. I. Reuben and Company Limited and it reads:
Dear Sirs,


We acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 25th June 1982 and having read the contents we wish to state here and now in the vernacular that you are not on. You have seen all the letters we have written to you so your letter of the 25th June in our opinion is from a stupid person or a devious one".
That devious or stupid person has just been conned out of hundreds or thousands of pounds by Mr. Reuben.
Please read the following very slowly, with a ruler if needed.
1. Keys were never handed in. 2. Notice to quit was never accepted.
Mr. Reuben had no intention of issuing a notice to quit.
3. The flat still contains furniture. We refer to our letter of 22nd June 1982, paragraph 2, which is reproduced for slow readers:
PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE GET VACANT POSSESSION OF THE FLAT AND INDEED ACCEPT VACANT POSSESSION OF THE FLAT YOUR CLIENT REMAINS LIABLE FOR ANY VANDALISM THAT OCCURS."
There has been evidence that some of the vandalism has been carried out by Mr. Reuben's "heavies" after tenants have moved out, in order to increase their bill. The letter said:
The matter is now in the hands of our solicitors".
That letter is signed by L. I. Reuben and Company Ltd.
That is the kind of thing that goes on in the private rented sector yet the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) had the audacity to talk about the unacceptability of public landlords. That sector is full of such people although perhaps not quite so bad. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) referred to a man who has just emerged in my constituency, renting properties and exploiting people.
The next Labour Government must reverse the Government's policies. We must stop the exploitation of people by private landlords. We must stop believing that property is something that people can invest money in and make a profit from. We must develop policies, unlike those in the Bill, which will revitalise the public rented sector and build low-rise council flats for rent. As Aneurin Bevan said, the best kind of rent control is nine people chasing 10 houses. We do not want a shortage of houses which can be exploited. We want a surplus. Labour's programme for jobs, our alternative economic strategy, requires a massive council house building and modernisation programme to get people back to work, to reflate the economy in a Socialist way and to meet housing need appropriately, without exploitation or public money being used for private gain. That is what the next Labour Government will do.

Mr. Neil Thorne: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will speak on all three parts of the Bill but first on parts II and III. Therefore, I shall not immediately refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), although I shall say a few words on the matter later.
I am a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) rightly said that that organisation is not in favour of all the proposals in parts II and III. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors does of course represent a large number of professional people who work in building control. I am not at all surprised, therefore, that they should be in favour of retaining the present arrangements rather than becoming privatised. I can assure the hon.

Lady that when the Bill becomes an Act, those who are members of the Institution will ensure that it works in accordance with the will of Parliament.
If I may, I will refer to a number of points of detail. Clause 23 does not require the approved inspector to certify that the plans are correct and comply with the building regulations; that happens only if he is requested to do so by the owner of the building. That is wrong. The inspector should be required to certify the plans in the first place, because it is not unusual for owners of buildings and builders to go bankrupt during a development. When that happens, questions are raised about the refinancing of the project. If a certificate that the plans comply with the building regulations is not issued in the first place, an additional dimension will be added to the problems of redeveloping a site.
We all know of the anguish caused to adjoining owners and to the public generally when they see a building site half completed and left, on occasion, for many years. I have such a site in my constituency which has been half completed for about 15 years. I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that it causes a great deal of annoyance to everyone involved, not least the adjoining shop owners who find great difficulty in overcoming the problem caused by a void area in the middle of a shopping parade. It would be wrong to allow that to be supported by the Bill, as it would if it did not require the inspector to certify that the plans complied with byelaws at the outset.
My second point concerns clause 34, which provides that the Secretary of State has power to
approve and issue any document (whether or not prepared by him or by the body concerned) …
At the moment, a number of bodies, including the British Standards Institution, can certify certain building materials. Although some of us may not always agree with the way in which this body proceeds, it is highly reputable and does a conscientious job. The belief that there could be a large number of other organisations—perhaps development associations for bricks, timber or something similar, which might in future acquire some authority to lay down rules and regulations which would be adopted by the Minister without further ado—causes concern in the profession. Such a position could raise a conflict of interest.
As the Government have been anxious to avoid conflicts of interest in other Bills, I hope that they will examine this matter carefully and will not proceed in this way without limiting such bodies most severely. A producers' organisation is not necessarily in the best position to give impartial advice on what the public should accept in the way of its products.
Clause 35 provides that where a disagreement takes place between a local authority inspector and a building owner the matter can be referred to the Secretary of State for decision but only where the matter is in compliance with the previously approved documents. This is probably far too narrow because there may be a sound reason for alterations to an existing proposal. It would be wrong if the Secretary of State were not in a position to decide the issue purely and simply on this technicality but it is important that he should be prepared to listen to any proposal that stems from a disagreement between the building owner and the local authority over the implementation of byelaws. I know that my right hon. Friend is anxious to reduce the work load on his Department by every possible means, but I am convinced


that this proposal will raise more problems than it will solve. It should be considered carefully before a decision is made.
Under clause 38 the Secretary of State is required to consult the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. I understand that that consultation would be only on matters of a technical nature. However, the committee would be concerned about administrative and other matters as well as technical issues. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this provision before the Bill is enacted. It is clear that there is a need to consult people of this calibre on these issues and not merely on narrow technical points.
I turn my attention to part I of the Bill. I agree very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) said about shared ownership. He suggested that it will be too restrictive if we start with the 50 per cent. provision. I also hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the possibility of starting with 25 per cent. There are many who would very much like to own their own property. Labour Members have been making much of the claim that ownership of property does not necessarily increase the overall stock. I do not agree with them. In my experience, when people own their own property they considerably lengthen the life of the property.
That is an important aspect of owner-occupation. Apart from increasing the housing stock, it is important to recognise the need to increase the life of properties so that the resources that are available can be used to build elsewhere. Therefore, it is important to have as many owner-occupiers as possible. The 50 per cent. requirement seems unduly restrictive. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reconsider the issue and accept 25 per cent. as the starting point.
Labour Members still seem to believe that home ownership should be restricted to those who are especially affluent. This is entirely the wrong policy. The hon. Member for Bolton, West responded to my earlier intervention by saying that she believed that everyone occupying a council house should fall into the category of being poor. We have fewer than 20 million houses in Britain, of which more than 6 million are council houses. This tends to put about 15 million people into what she would consider as the poor category.
That is not fair and reasonable. Undoubtedly all these properties—those which have been built for local authorities and those built by housing associations originally for poorer people with the use of public money—should be available for purchase as those people become more affluent. The simple reason is that there is no mechanism available for turning people out of the property that they occupy. If Opposition Members were to argue that when council tenants reach a certain income—for example, the average wage of manual workers—they must leave their council houses or housing association premises and make provision for themselves, their case might be more forceful, but I have heard no Opposition Members use that argument tonight.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the hon. Member aware that, because of Government policy on rent increases and the unrestricted amount of tax relief that owner-occupiers enjoy, the opposite is true? Owner-occupiers are subsidised more than council tenants. If the hon.

Gentleman is worried about those who live in subsidised houses, he should advocate that people move out of owner-occupied houses, and into council houses that are not subsidised and leave owner-occupied dwellings to those who cannot afford to rent from the council.

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Member is wrong to say that there is no limit to tax relief allowances. There is a limit of £25,000 that many people believe should be raised. Furthermore, he does not fully understand that, whether or not a person pays a rent that is commensurate with the property that he is renting or whether he is buying a property, he desires to buy it because he wishes to make a contribution towards its maintenance and future use. Whether a person owns an interest in his property is of great importance to him. It is unusual for tenants to take as much interest in a property as an owner-occupier. One need only visit a council estate to see the way in which people who have invested in their own future have lavished time and money on their accommodation.
I welcome private ownership, and I hope that it will be enlarged again in the future. There is nothing wrong with private ownership. I applaud the fact that people now have a wonderful opportunity under the present Government to purchase their property at a discount, which takes into account the fact that the property has been let and is not with vacant possession.
Opposition Members have already asked whether properties in the private sector should be sold with discounts. Obviously the Opposition do not realise that owners have been selling their properties to their tenants for years and invariably give discounts to their tenants similar to those given by local authorities. In addition, the owners do not require the resale of the property back to themselves if their tenants move out a week later. The landlord has no pre-emption rights and on most occasions he was more than pleased to get half of the open market value for the property.
During the past 20 years, landlords have been extremely willing to sell to their tenants if they receive a realistic offer. An offer of 50 per cent. of the value was not unusual. That is not unreasonable, since under existing legislation and the present system of rent control, a sitting tenant has a special advantage if he wishes to buy the property. Undoubtedly, with the present tax relief and falling interest rates, one can now buy a property at a reasonable price and thereby invest in one's future without paying more than one pays in rent. Of course, one must take on the additional responsibility of maintaining the premises, but the Government should encourage such investment as much as possible because it will preserve the nation's accommodation. If we do not do that, property deteriorates.
The hon. Member for Bootle mentioned the donkey that marched past the flat on an eighth floor balcony and that was accommodated in the lift shaft at night. If that had happened in a block of flats where the majority of people owned their homes, an alternative arrangement would have been made because those people would have taken an immediate interest in the effect on the value of their property. There would have been no need to move the old lady because the other tenants would not have accepted the position. The hon. Gentleman sums up the difference in attitude between those who have a basic interest in the property that they occupy and those who believe that local


or central Government should take on all their responsibilities and cares and deal with the matter on their behalf.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The old lady who complained took an interest in her council property and looked after it very well, as did most of the other tenants in the block. However, they still did not wish to buy their flats but wished to transfer to council houses.

Mr. Thorne: If they used the incident to better their position and to move into council houses, that is a different matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that many privately owned flats are well maintained. People are happy to live in them and have no desire to use any vehicle to move to a house. I question the way in which the properties are maintained, because those who live there do not have such a high personal stake as owner-occupiers. If one has a personal stake, one's attitude is different and one must ensure that the investment does not lose value because of the unnecessary and cavalier behaviour of other tenants. The Government must encourage the sale of council homes and are doing so.
The ownership of flats and houses and their purchase from housing associations is important. A technical point that I wish to get out of the way now is the sale of local authority and housing association flats that have 50 years to run on the lease. For houses the term is 22 years. What happens at the end of that time? I am not sure whether my hon. Friend believes that the much shorter 22 years for a house is acceptable whereas 50 years is required for a flat because the leaseholder may then be eligible, under the Leasehold Reform Act, to purchase the freehold. If that is his intention, I fully support the proposal. If, however, that is not the thinking behind the measure, it must be further examined, because if the occupier wishes to sell the premises he may find that only 10 or 15 years remain on the lease. That would raise problems with mortgages and the maintenance of the property, because the person who is interested in purchasing a property for cash will do so only on a short-term basis and the area would deteriorate quickly. That is contrary to the Government's intentions on the matter and I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure us.
The 50 years for flats is itself short. I know that there are problems about extending the Leasehold Reform Act to flats, but I hope that something can be done to reassure people here as well, because 50 years does not leave a great deal of time. If a mortgage runs for 20 or 25 years of that, the lease will then become very thin. I hope, therefore, that some comment can be made on what is likely to happen at the end of that period.
I especially welcome this part of the Bill as in an Adjournment debate on 19 April this year I raised the case of Mr. and Mrs. J. Reed of 135 Thorold Road in my constituency. Mr. and Mrs. Reed were on the council waiting list for many years, hoping to be able to obtain a council house. Unfortunately, as they had no children, their priority was not high and they had no immediate prospects of securing such accommodation.
The local authority—the London borough of Redbridge—had always been anxious not to create a vast council estate that would take over the whole area as it felt that it was important to have other forms of tenure. It was anxious that it should encourage as many owner-occupiers as possible, for the reasons that I have already given. It

also felt that people who could not purchase could go some way in that direction by becoming tenants of a housing association. The borough and the Housing Corporation therefore lent money to various housing associations with a view to providing accommodation as an alternative to council housing or purchasing in the private sector.
At the last general election, the Conservative manifesto made it clear that the Conservatives proposed as soon as possible to give the right to buy to council tenants and tenants of housing associations. That was a matter for great rejoicing by many people, not least my constituents. Mr. and Mrs. Reed had been extremely conscientious tenants. Unlike so many, they had spent a good deal of money on the premises that they occupied. I believe that they invested considerably more than £2,000 some time ago on improvements such as double glazing. That was to the benefit of the property as a whole. It was also a further reason why they were especially pleased when they heard of the Conservative proposal and overjoyed when the Conservative Government were returned in 1979.
It was extremely upsetting for Mr. and Mrs. Reed then to find that they could not purchase their home under the 1980 Act because they were tenants of a housing association which, although it was not a charity, operated under the charitable rules. Naturally, they hoped that things would be sorted out as soon as possible so that they would have the opportunity to purchase the property, I expressed their anxiety during my Adjournment debate, and since then I have had further discussions with Ministers.
I had hoped that in this Bill we should have the answer to their problems because they were tenants of a housing association with charitable status. They moved into their accommodation in 1970 and became tenants of the Trinity housing association which has now been taken over by the East London housing association. That puts a different complexion upon it. I understand that the automatic right to purchase is being given only to those people who have moved into accommodation which was purchased by housing associations after 1974.
It would be wrong to exclude those people who are living in accommodation, purchased with money provided by the local authority and the Housing Corporation, whenever that purchase was made. The Government's intention always has been that those people who wish to purchase their property should be enabled to do so provided that the funds came largely from the public exchequer. In this case the money was provided by both national and local government exchequer in the main, and therefore I hope that the Minister can assure me that the provision will apply also to my constituents. I can see no difference between their position and that of those who occupy accommodation built after 1974.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The Front Bench spokesmen wish to start their speeches at 10 minutes past nine. Four hon. Members have been waiting most of the day. Will those hon. Members bear that in mind when they make their speeches?

Mr. John Cartwright: I agree with the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) that owner-occupiers invest a great deal of time, effort and


cash in looking after their homes. Owner-occupation is an important and attractive tenure for many people. However, we should recognise that it is not possible for everyone to be an owner-occupier. I wish that some hon. Members opposite would display a little interest in those people who will never be able to buy their own home.
The right-to-buy principle has caused a good deal of excitement in the House. I voted against the 1980 legislation, not because I had any ideological hang-ups about selling council houses, but because I objected to the principle of compulsion. In an ideal world the sale of council houses would be a matter for local decision. The position varies from area to area, and while it makes perfect sense to sell council property in some areas it may be a disastrous policy in others.
Before we had this continual party dog fight, it was something that was looked at on merit. There were always Labour councils that sold council houses and some very prominent members of the Labour Party took advantage of that. A former member of the Tribune group in the House was one of those who did. There have been Tory councils that did not sell because they did not believe it to be in the interests of ratepayers. Unfortunately, the issue has now become completely politicised and is not judged on its merits. Conservatives will sell; Labour will refuse overwhelmingly to sell.
I do not believe therefore that we can go back to local decision. We must retain the right-to-buy legislation but with a number of changes. I should like to see a provision that enabled a local authority in a housing stress area to seek a suspension of the right to buy for a limited period if evidence could be produced that sales would adversely affect housing in its area. Our present blanket arrangements need some flexibility. Equally, I want to see an increase in the supply of rented housing from sources other than local authorities—in particular, from sources trying to attract institutional investments. We must reduce the current dangerous polarisation between owner-occupation and local authority renting.
As there is a general right to buy, it ought to be applied as fairly as possible. We all know that practical problems have arisen from the 1980 legislation. Some intending purchasers are unreasonably excluded, others who have the right to buy are unfairly treated by the procedure. I welcome those parts of the Bill which seek to sort out the anomalies.
I welcome the provisions in clause 1 relating to the tenants of leasehold properties. I accept that practical problems are associated with those provisions, but they are right in principle.
I give a more cautious welcome to the shared ownership lease principle. Part buying and part renting can bring owner-occupation within the grasp of lower income families. This has a considerable part to play in the private housing market, particularly when used by housing associations. I have no objection in principle to using this provision in the purchase of council houses, but as the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) reminded us, it will clearly add to the administrative problems in housing departments. It will raise a number of complex issues, especially when district heating systems and arrangements for other services are considered.
I fear that this will be a happy hunting ground for local authorities that are reluctant to see the provision work. It will need determined tenants to achieve shared purchase in some local authority areas.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on clause 5 and schedule 3, which deal with service charges. To begin with, I should like to comment on the tactics employed by the London borough of Greenwich. Greenwich, under Labour control, has done all that it possibly can to deter tenants from buying their homes. First, there was the traditional delay in processing the applications. Once that was out of the way, there was a denial of any programmed decorations or anything but essential repairs for tenants who had the effrontery to submit a right-to-buy application. From then on, their decoration and repair applications were blacklisted.
There was also the delightful idea that the council would refuse to sell the garage to anyone who brought a council house. Even when the garage was in the garden of the property, the council tried not to sell it. It has now been argued out of that, but the council is refusing to sell garages that are not within the curtilage of the property being sold.
Tenants who buy their houses find that after many years of renting a garage they cannot continue to do so. They are then placed at the back of the queue and are in the ridiculous situation of seeing the garage that they have given up stand empty for months while the council tries to let it to someone else.
Those pressures have been applied not against property speculators, developers or Rachman-like landlords, but against ordinary working people, many of whom have been Labour voters or Labour Party members all their life. Those are the people who are being victimised by the London borough of Greenwich. The problem came to a head over the selling of flats and maisonettes. Labour Members argue with considerable justice that the policy of selling will cream off some of the best houses and the local authority will be left with the undesirable flats and maisonettes.
Why, then, did the London borough of Greenwich not leap at the prospect of selling flats and maisonettes? Initially, it said that it would love to do so but could not because there was no agreement on service charges. It said that the local authority associations were involved in negotiation with the Department of the Environment about service charges. We discovered that that was untrue.
The council then said that it would love to sell, but unfortunately could not find a way through the practical problems of dealing with the lease and the service charges. We pointed out that neighbouring authorities had solved those problems and were selling. The council then agreed to sell. It started to process applications in the spring of this year. Potential buyers of flats and maisonettes were shocked by the level of service charges for which the council asked. I shall give examples of those first year charges.
For a two-bedroomed maisonette in Abbey Wood for the year in which external decoration falls, the service charge is £523 a year. That falls to £173 in years when external decorations do not take place. A two-bedroomed flat in beautiful downtown Plumstead would cost £608 in a year when decorations are due and £258 in other years. A two-bedroomed flat in Charlton would cost £1,989 a year when decorations take place and £1,639 when they do not.
The height of stupidity was reached with regard to the Rockmount estate in Plumstead. This is mainly 10-storey blocks of two-bedroomed flats. The council said that it thought that the service charge on those flats would be about £3,500 a year. Those are only the first year charges. They are payable in advance on completion and would rise annually, as the council points out.
Taking on that type of commitment would put tenants in jeopardy for the rest of their lives. They would have tremendous difficulty reselling their flat or maisonette with that type of millstone around their necks.
It is not surprising that intending purchasers have been forced to back out. They were not trying to cream off the most desirable properties. They were merely trying to buy flats and maisonettes in not particularly sought after areas.
We then tried to find out the details of the service charges. We discovered after much hard work—the details were not volunteered by the local authority—that some elements of the service charges were doubtful. Some people were being asked to pay service charges for facilities that they had never used and, in some cases, did not even know existed. They included laundries and play areas a long way from where they lived. They were also to be charged for services that are used by the general public—estate roads, amenity greens, community centres, and even street lighting. Those are examples of facilities that intending purchasers were asked to pay for if they had the temerity to try to buy council property.
Some of those problems also affect those who are trying to buy houses. The charges are not so large, but people are still having difficulty in finding out the details. In many cases, they are not discovering the full impact of the service charge until just before the sale is completed.
I therefore welcome clause 5 and schedule 3, which are aimed at limiting the extent of the charges to what is reasonable in terms of cost. They also provide a basic right of information.
I return to the point that I made during the Secretary of State's speech. I asked how real would be the protection for those who succeeded in purchasing property. Who will decide what is a reasonable charge? Who will settle what is a reasonable standard of work for which the owner-occupiers must pay? I hope that the Minister will not tell us that action in the county court will settle those matters. We are discussing ordinary council tenants who do not have the resources to take on a powerful local authority in the courts.
I shall now comment on clause 2, which deals with charitable housing associations. Like other hon. Members, I declare my interest as a former member of the board of management of the London and Quadrant housing trust. I am still a shareholder in that trust. I strongly object to what is proposed in clause 2. Housing associations are voluntary bodies, not Government agencies that may be instructed. The fact that they receive Government grants does not alter that position. As other hon. Members have pointed out, private landlords receive grants, yet they will not be faced with their tenants having the right to buy.
Moreover, there is a legal duty on charities to get the best possible price for any assets that they sell. It is for the charities themselves to decide whether such a sale is beneficial. The Government are creating an extremely dangerous precedent by forcing sales that are against the wishes of the charity—and at substantial discounts.
Most important of all, there is an urgent need for more choice in the availability of rented accommodation. We

should provide more sources than merely local authorities for rented housing, especially in large cities. That is where charitable housing associations have some valuable property. The Notting Hill housing trust, the Peabody trust, the Battersea Churches housing trust and many others provide vital housing stock in stress areas. All are under threat as a result of this legislation. This clause is a retrograde step. It is not justified on the basis of the facts. It is based purely on political dogma. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have put down an Instruction to the Committee on this part of the Bill. We shall do our best to remove this clause in Committee.
I agree with those hon. Members who say that the Bill is largely irrelevant to the major housing problems. It is no answer to the fact that we are not building sufficient new homes to meet the growing need. Nor is it any answer to the fact that the existing housing stock is deteriorating to a worrying degree. It will not help to provide sufficient choice in rented housing. However, with the one glaring exception of the threat to charitable associations in clause 2, the Bill is not positively harmful. It will do some good in dealing with anomalies. It merits unenthusiastic support. That is what I propose to give it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), although I cannot support his objections to certain parts of the Bill. Many of my constituents also suffer severely under the policies of the obnoxious Greenwich council majority group. No longer can it be claimed that the Greenwich council is serving its people in the manner that it did when the hon. Member for Woolwich, East was its leader or even when Arthur Capelin served as leader until earlier this year.
The present Greenwich Labour group is doing its best to trample ordinary people into the ground, even to the extent that it has been criticised by Ken Livingstone. I talked to Ken Livingstone during a debate at the Cambridge Union a few days ago. I put to him the case of a 47-year-old man who, for the past 20 years, has been looking after his mother in their council house. They had voluntarily given up a four-bedroom home to move into a two-bedroom house 14 years ago. The council had therefore obtained 28 bedroom years, if I may use my own jargon.
As soon as the mother died Greenwich council said that the man must be compulsorily moved. I believe that the council took that harsh and unfeeling attitude because the mother and son together had applied to buy and the council had not responded within the four weeks, which is the requirement under the Housing Act 1980. The case has since been pursued in the county court.
I do not wish to argue the merits because the judgment is not yet known. If care in the community means anything, it means encouraging people to accept family responsibilities and to keep elderly people in their own homes. they should not be penalised by an instruction to move when they have spent many years—in some cases 20 years—helping their families. Ken Livingstone condemned the action. I. condemn it. I hope that Greenwich council will reverse its policy as soon as possible whatever the outcome of the court case.
Another constituent, a woman of 57, has received similar treatment. It is the sort of behaviour that we have come to expect of Greenwich council. The sooner the


council changes its ways or is curtailed by the law the better. I shall look forward, if I serve on the Committee, to pressing my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench to do more to make clear our intention under the 1980 Act.
I have as many examples as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East of the behaviour of Greenwich council. A tenant was told that he could not buy his garage and therefore applied to the council for permission to construct a garage in the garden. In giving permission, Greenwich council said that the cost would be £1,000. That sort of behaviour strikes me as unreasonable. I shall be interested to discover if any Labour Member supports Greenwich council in what it has done.
I shall not enter into the argument about whether it is right that councils should be required to sell. In a borough that is built up, there is no way in which the tenants of Greenwich can share in the general movement towards owner-occupation without using compulsory powers making local authorities agree to voluntary purchase by people of their council homes.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East talked about service charges. In my constituency there are many cottage estates. We hope that they will be mixed in ownership as well as in residence. People got council houses because they were in need. Since then the financial circumstances or family circumstances of many of them have changed and many choose to buy. When they try to do so they discover that Greenwich council is charging them for the use of launderettes that are open to everyone and are not confined to people on the estate and that they are asked to pay for the upkeep of greens when, until the council took that attitude, it had been assumed by everyone that the cost of maintaining such facilities was borne on the rates.
If Greenwich has a claim, I hope that the Bill will dispose of it. If not, I shall table amendments and I shall try to persuade my hon. Friends to accept them. If the charges were previously carried on the rates, the council does not have the right to impose them now. The council does not have the right to require someone who lives on the ground floor or in a ground floor and first floor maisonette to have the outside of his home redecorated by the council. That is unnecessary when a man could do it himself, using a ladder.
Greenwich is one of the worst local authorities in the country. Its actions are at variance with the wishes of individual members of the Labour Party. I suspect that they are at variance with the wishes of most Labour members of Greenwich council. It is time to do something about that.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Who voted for them?

Mr. Bottomley: It is right that we should take legislative action. I shall follow up the point that was made by the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), who is now consulting his diary after talking more than he is supposed to. He asked who elected those people. The answer is that few people support them.
Those who are members of the Labour Party in Woolwich, West should do two things. First they should find out from individual Labour councillors why they are taking their present attitude and why they appear to hate ordinary tenants who want to exercise the normal ambition of owning their own home. If they find that the local

Labour Party will pay no attention to them, they should then stop paying contributions to the Labour Party and, if they are members of a trade union, they could contract out of paying the political levy and join one of the alternative parties that wants to make sure that the people of Greenwich have a chance of owning their own homes.
I shall give one example of people who want to own their own homes. A family in my constituency has a handicapped child, who can live with them. There is a reasonable chance that the child will be able to go on living in the home in which it has been brought up, in the community, and with community support, after the parents have died. The parents do not want to put the child at the risk of being compulsorily transferred by Greenwich council. We have seen examples of people who are hale and hearty suffering from the threat of being moved. For good reasons those parents want to continue living in their own home. They want to own it so that they can leave it to their child without let or hindrance, by making sure that the major costs for the house have been paid. However, Greenwich council takes the attitude that it will not go along with those ordinary wishes.
Many other things could be said about Greenwich council. I think that it would be a good idea if I were on the Committee. I warn my hon. Friend the Minister that we have not gone far enough. We have not gone far enough on the matter of secure tenants who move into short-life accommodation because they want a larger home and then go back to ordinary council housing. The Bill does not account for the time in between when they are living in what is supposed to be short-life accommodation. That period could be 10 years. So many anomalies need to be dealt with when we are dealing with a council such as Greenwich.
I hope that when Labour Members come to speak on Committee they will have the guts to stand up and condemn their political colleagues on Greenwich council for doing things that no reasonable person could justify. Greenwich council has not tried to justify anything that it has done. It has just said that it opposes what is going on.
There is one small point that is not covered by the Bill, and is not likely to be. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a short time ago that she would make no adjustments to mortgage relief while she was First Lord of the Treasury. It is important that she changes her mind. It is important that we concentrate housing help at the time that it is needed, both in terms of mortgage interest relief and of provision of council homes, and that we try to have a system to help council tenants to buy their own homes, if they can afford to do so. People who are owner-occupiers, having received their first mortgage, should have a system that encourages them to pay off as soon as they can. We need to get away from the system that gives greater housing help under mortgage relief to those who are higher paid and receiving relief at the higher rate of tax.
It may be thought politically unacceptable to say that, but I have said it many times in the House—if one wants to keep a secret one has only to say it in the House—and I shall go on saying it. I hope that I can persuade my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to change her mind rather than having to give up her position before I am successful in my battle.

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North): I listened attentively to the Secretary of State and, apart from one short break, I have been present throughout the whole debate. I confess that I have become more and more depressed as the evening has worn on by what I have heard.
The Bill is probably the Secretary of State's and the Government's last chance to say anything important about the worsening state of our housing stock, both public and private, and to announce plans to do something about it before the general election. However, I am afraid that they must have muffed that chance. The Bill as it now stands, and the Secretary of State's opening speech, must seem to many people outside the House, as well as to my right hon. and hon. Friends, to be out of context with, and almost irrelevant to, the real issues facing those of us concerned with housing.
I have been shown today just how far away from the problems that affect thousands of people are the Secretary of State and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends. The Secretary of State said that one should get out and meet the people to see how pleased they are with the measures in the Bill. What rubbish. I constantly meet people, as most hon. Members do, and I do not know many who would share the right hon. Gentleman's feelings about the Bill. On the contrary, I find that the effect of all this talk about selling council houses and the weight behind the propaganda worries people.
In my constituency people become frightened that the more talk there is of selling more and more council houses, the longer and longer becomes the wait of those who are distressed and desperately need the only type of accommodation they will ever get. If the Secretary of State came among ordinary folk he would find that they are disgusted with, and contemptuous of, this cynical propaganda in which the Government are indulging in this and other Bills before the general election. It is almost as though the Government are writing their manifesto and, at whatever cost, are determined to give a much-needed boost to the statistics of council houses that have been sold and are up for sale.
Listening to the Secretary of State's speech, it was difficult to believe, from my long experience of London, that within a few miles radius of the House thousands of people are living in appallingly substandard conditions in what is left of the private sector—short—let properties or hard-to-let dwellings. Some are without basic amenities and others have only shared toilets and bathrooms, with all the problems which that entails. I am not aware of any desire on the part of those tenants to waste their money on buying their hovels. There is no clamour from them to buy these substandard properties.
However, these properties need improvements. If anything, the Bill could have made provision for improving the standards of housing of these tenants if the Government were serious about tackling the problems. Many people are homeless. Families are homeless. As the housing stock rapidly deteriorates and as unemployment increases, the homeless figures also increase, particularly in inner London as more and more people come to the capital seeking work.
The more fortunate of these people are living in bed and breakfast accommodation—like refugee camps—until such time as the resource-starved local authorities can help

them. The time taken to give such help is becoming longer and longer as resources become smaller and smaller and the problems become bigger and bigger. To suggest that we should speak to the people and find out how delighted they are with the Government's housing policy is a travesty of the facts, as most of us know from our constituencies.
Only yesterday, I received a letter and a pamphlet that pointed out the extent of condensation and damp in our housing stock. The pamphlet's authors estimate that 2 million post-war dwellings are seriously affected by condensation. That figure does not take account of pre-war dwellings or conversions, so the true figure must be much higher than that. The problem is not being treated at all—let alone as urgently as it should be. The Bill could have contained provisions that gave assistance to local authorities and others to tackle that problem.
I had hoped that the building control provisions and the regulations to be introduced could be extended to tackle the problem. I understand that all hon. Members received the pamphlet, which contains examples of problems in fairly new dwellings. In one London borough I understand that the houses are only sever years old. Houses now stand empty and boarded up because they have been rendered uninhabitable through condensation and damp. The situation is becoming worse and should be given high priority.
I hope that the Secretary of State will have another think about extending existing clauses, or introducing new clauses or regulations to deal with the urgent crisis in large hostels. That point has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor). Not five miles from the House, hon. Members will find Arlington House, which is a huge hostel with 1,066 beds. In a recent report it was described as the largest and worst slum in Camden. Men live in cubicles 5ft by 7ft—35 sq ft. As has been said, they live like battery chickens. The local authority's minimum standard is 70 sq ft. The controlling company, Rowton Hotels, has made substantial profits from the miserable circumstances of its tenants and has used the bulk of its profits to invest not in better hostels but in more expensive hotels.
According to the figures that I have received, Arlington House generated pre-tax profits in 1981 of £280,000 on a turnover of £860,000, and £350 was ploughed back into improvements. In the past 11 weeks, workers at that establishment have been on strike for more wages. They are also residents in the hostel. They earn the princely sum of £26 for a 48-hour week, excluding the cubicle and the cost of some food. I should add that food in that hostel is sometimes dearer than the food sold in the House. Those who can least afford it are expected to buy it.
The employers have reacted by sacking the strikers and taking them to court for possession of the cubicles. Needless to say, they have gained the necessary court permission and the whole panoply of State machinery—the police, the bailiffs, the Black Marias and so on—are being assembled to evict 40 men later this week, without any regard to the consequences for them but as a warning to those who dare to ask for more in that Dickensian institution. The owners have also intimated their intention to quit the hostel business, thus creating more misery and uncertainly where it can least be endured. I know that they will want to get out, because the business is no longer profitable. The place is in such a mess and


needs so much money to put it right that they want to slide out and leave the problem to someone else. There is no more profit in it for them.
I am worried about the condition of the hostel and the men who live there. I am not aware of any clamour by the residents of the hostel to buy their cubicles. Nor am I aware of any provision in the Bill that would allow them to do so, although I should not be surprised if someone were to suggest one in Committee. I am aware, however, of the urgent need for the Government to intervene and to provide money to assist local authorities and housing associations to buy these hostels, so that a properly planned, phased programme of improvement, replacement and adjustment to densities can take place. That is what I want. I would invert the process and allow housing associations to buy large as well as small hostels, because they and the local authorities are the only bodies which can manage this type of accommodation.
I want the Minister to tackle one other matter before the Bill goes to Committee, and that is the need for the enactment and enforcement of stricter standards of fire precautions, repairs and amenities in houses in multiple occupation. The subject was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West in opening the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. I am aware of the Minister's appreciation and understanding of the problem and of the steps that he has already taken, but we are entitled to demand that he takes the opportunity afforded by the Bill to improve still further the regulations governing these matters. He will know that the limitations of size—at present 500 square metres—cover only the large hostels, and that many of the fire tragedies in recent years have occurred in smaller units not covered by regulations.
The Minister will know, too, from previous debates on this subject, that 52 people died in recent years in houses in multiple occupation as a result of fires, and hundreds more have been rendered homeless. We need legislation now to impose higher standards of fire safety, prevention of overcrowding, enforcement of repairs and adequate standards of amenity and management in all multiple-occupied premises. That would have been a perfectly good reason for introducing a housing Bill at this stage. Such provisions could still be included in this Bill between now and the Committee stage. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will respond favourably to my proposals and bring forward, before the Committee stage, suitable Government amendments to deal with the problems that I have mentioned.

Mr. Robert Litherland: I shall be as brief as I can in the short time that is available.
In opening, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) told us what it was all about. The sale of housing association accommodation should not surprise us. It is a dogmatic approach and a progression of the Government's policy to hive off the lucrative sections of public housing in their quest for privatisation. No public asset is safe from their clutches. The process will continue, and it should not surprise us.
The Government's gluttony towards public assets is insatiable. The sale of council houses was the Government's attempt to buy the votes of council tenants by offering the best in public housing at giveaway prices.

The private sector has failed miserably to meet the housing needs of people, especially in inner city areas. This latest extension of the Government's policy, which will affect the housing associations, is an admission of defeat.
The Government's housing policy has been a disaster, as has been already said in this debate. They have the worst house building record since the mid-twenties, while thousands of construction workers languish on the dole, and millions of house-building bricks are stockpiled and remain unused, and thousands wait on waiting lists throughout the country. The Bill will not provide one extra home. It is just another gimmick at the expense of the people who desperately need homes, as housing waiting lists continue to grow, and hopes of decent accommodation diminish.
The housing associations in Manchester have complemented local authority housing at a time when people cannot afford to buy. It is all right for the Government to say that interest and mortgage rates are coming down, but that is not the real question. It is the purhasing power that controls the market. With 4 million people unemployed, the purchasing power is not available. The Bill will be detrimental to such people's aspirations as more houses are taken out of the rent pool.
In my constituency there is an estate built by a company in the Bison Group, Northern Concrete Ltd. It is a system-built package deal—a monstrosity with a deck access design built only 11 years ago. Three weeks ago the city council brought in the demolition squad and it is now being demolished. There are 1,000 jerry-built, damp-ridden flats which have been a disaster and a scandal. They were a sheer waste of the tax payers' and ratepayers' money. We have not sold one dwelling on that estate. A thousand families must be rehoused, adding to the strain on Manchester city council's waiting list. The housing associations will assist the Manchester city council to alleviate that problem. Any reduction in their stock of rented property will only add to the problem.
Conservative Members have talked about inner city areas having no soul because of a lack of financial interest. They live in cloud-cuckoo-land. The people in my inner city area are not all Members of Parliament, consultants or professional people. There are about 30 per cent. unemployed. My advice bureau is full of people on social security. Those people cannot buy houses and it is they who need rented accommodation.
We have built such people a new Jerusalem, the maisonette land and so on. Now it is falling round their shoulders. We want proper traditional housing in bricks and mortar. In Manchester, the best houses that have been built by direct works are now subsidising the system-built rubbish that is falling down. The estate at Wellington Street, Beswick, is one reason why the Bill should be opposed.
Housing on that estate is inadequate and nobody in their right senses would purchase such dwellings. Living in them denies them that opportunity, and to reduce the overall housing stock by including housing association properties diminishes their chance of better housing. Who is responsible for the rapid deterioration of the estate and the latent defects? Responsibility for designing and building must ultimately lie with the designer and builder.
Much clarification of the Bill is needed. There should be further consultation with the appropriate bodies before changing to a system of private certification. The Royal Institute of British Architects considers it essential that the


law on liability for latent defect should be amended and the recast regulations made available before any recommendations relating to any form of certification can be put to its members. Therefore, the Secretary of State does not have the support of the RIBA.
The burden of liability must be clarified. It would appear that time is unlimited. How can a person be expected to underwrite for all time a building the construction and design of which he has no control over? What insurance cover would be adequate to cover the cost of major projects? Will the eventual outcome be a switch away from the expert bodies on building regulations that we know towards the insurance companies? It would be a brave independent person who took on the task of issuing certificates for a building project with liability unlimited in time. Some areas of the Bill require greater study and consideration before change is envisaged. Some clauses require clarification.
The RIBA is concerned that its previous recommendations have been ignored by the Secretary of State. It recommends that suitably qualified private and professional practitioners be allowed the option to self-certify building works, whether it be in part or whole, or alterations to existing buildings. It also refers in its recommendations to suitable insurance. Here again, there is an element of doubt.
I shall give, for example, the hypothetical case of an architect who has worked all his life in the public sector, possibly with a local authority, and is due to retire. He may feel that he would welcome the opportunity to do certification work, as he is a suitably qualified and competent practitioner. However, at his time of life, he might feel that he should limit his involvement to five years or so—a limited time of involvement with an unlimited time of risk. How would a retiring public sector architect be able to cover the cost of a major claim? Would his successors take on the risk? Would an insurance company give him the unlimited cover?
If a disaster occurred, there should be a reasonable body which accepts liability. For an independent person to be responsible, suitable insurance would have to be provided. The Bill is extremely vague on this point. Successive public health legislation has made the building control system rather cumbersome. If change is to be made, greater thought and consultation must take place.

Mr. Ted Graham: I regret very much that time did not allow my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) to contribute to the debate. He sat through the debate from its beginning. It is evidence of the interest of both sides of the House that, unfortunately, he was squeezed out at the end.
I begin by commenting briefly on the speech of the Secretary of State, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). The Secretary of State invited Labour Members to go outside among the people and talk to them in the real world. He said that a social revolution was going on that, apparently, Labour Members had not seen. Credentials have been paraded publicly and honourably from both sides of the House. Opposition Members have declared interests nothing greater than membership of housing associations or the fact that they are owner-occupiers or involved in housing. Conservative Members have declared their interests as architects, as estate agents, as members

of development companies, as members of the Conservative Central Office at some time in the past, as directors of house building associations and as surveyors. A variety of qualifications have been paraded during the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), in a forceful and successful speech, exposed substantially the yawning gaps which have been revealed in the Bill during the debate. It has been mentioned time after time, not only by Labour Members but by Conservative Members, that elements of the Bill have not been thought through. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West dealt effectively with the attempts of Conservative Members to deride the genuine concern of Labour Members for those in housing need and for public safety.
We cannot divorce the thrust of the Government's intentions in the Bill from their broad philosophy and strategy across the whole area of housing endeavour. Historians will look back on the case made out for the Bill in the present housing crisis as a joke in the worst possible taste. It fails completely to measure up to the needs of the people. It sets out to give those who already enjoy a home and a good landlord, or a good landlord-tenant relationship, the opportunity of a free gift—the accrued and enhanced equity of the home in which they live—even though this has been created by others as well as themselves. The Bill chooses to do this at a time when there are millions of families in desperate housing need. They have been made to suffer as a result of the Government's cuts and restrictions.
The second Tory housing goal in the Bill is a continued attack on the public service. The first part of the Bill seeks to promote and encourage greed. The second part seeks to reward those in the private sector who profess to have an interest in the health and safety of those who occupy a building or who pass by a building. In reality, their prime interest is to make money out of the building to the detriment of long-standing, well-tested and respected procedures.
The Bill has been foisted on the House and the country but it has been shown to be unloved and unwanted. It has been insufficiently thought through and it is a monument to a cynical disregard for advice that has been tendered. That advice has been ignored or emasculated and tendered as consultation.
The housing association movement, for cogent reasons, is greatly distressed by these proposals. First, the peg used by the Secretary of State to act so destructively towards housing associations is their receipt of public funds. However, private landlords have had millions of pounds of public money to use to improve their properties. The Bill does not provide private tenants with the right to buy. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) drew attention to the hypocrisy and imbalance of the Government's policy. Housing association grants are eventually repaid so why should the Government change the rules in the middle of the game? What gave the Government the right to apply retrospective conditions?
Secondly, it is a disgrace for the Government to attack charitable housing associations. Until the introduction of the Bill, a charity has been obliged to sell its assets at the best possible price and only when disposal would be financially in its interests. I trust that the Minister will tell the House how he can square these primary objectives with provisions that force charities to sell their assets. I hope


that he will recognise that charities have obligations and responsibilities in perpetuity. They act as custodians for the tenants of today and for tomorrow's homeless and disadvantaged.
I have been advised by Hackney charitable associations—the Under-Secretary and I listened with great care and concern to their representations only the other day—that in Hackney, charitable associations provide 7,000 units of low-rent accommodation to those in housing need, most of them being those in need of rehabilitation. The total stock is increased by 300 units a year. If the take-up of the right to buy is the same as the local authority right to buy, 50 per cent. of the annual output will be lost through sales in the first year after the Bill's enactment. This will mean that the associations will cease to be able to achieve a significant impact in providing accommodation of the sort that is most needed. The capacity of associations generally to offer help to those in the greatest need who are on borough waiting lists by means of nomination will be curtailed. Staffing levels will become unplannable and it is more than likely that properties bought by tenants will be in good condition and relatively maintenance-free while the rest will be left for housing associations to take up.
The London borough of Enfield has no claim to be different from many other councils. Like many other local authorities it is saddled with a Tory majority. Last month, Enfield council was told that the positon was getting worse. The housing committee reported to it:
There are more applicants competing for a dwindling stock of vacancies … We are becoming almost entirely dependent on 'incidental' vacancies in the existing housing stock, now that the new programme is almost at an end.
In 1979, new build in Enfield—a Tory borough under a Tory Government—was 321 and in 1982, it was 44. Vacancies from all sources in 1979 were 1,999 and in 1982 they were 1,443. The waiting list in 1979 was 5,483 and in 1982 it was 7,292—an increase of 1,809.
If I were asked by the Minister whether my interest, legislation, and public money should be consumed in ensuring that those who are already well-housed should be given the opportunity to buy, or whether time and money should be spent to those on the waiting list, I should not spend the resources on those wishing to buy council houses.
Enfield authority controls the Klinger estate in Edmonton—referred to more than once tonight—where the Tory GLC decided to sell the houses that were built for rent, with the connivance of the local Tory council. The recession caused by the Government led them to abandon the plan and now the properties will be rented.
Whatever benefit it might bring to those who decide to buy their own homes, the first part of the Bill will be a disaster for the housing association movement. I am especially worried about the effect of clause 20 onwards. The proposals in parts II and III are a grave threat to the standing and integrity of health and safety in construction terms.
Two main themes form the basis of the Government's advocacy of this part of the Bill. First, the Secretary of State is anxious to ensure high standards. Through the clause, the Secretary of State asserts that he wishes to ensure high standards and the reputation of local authority officers who will preserve high standards of integrity and

a comprehensive oversight of health and safety standards. However, in pursuit of the Government's declared long-term aims to introduce self-certification, regardless of the lack of evidence to support such a policy, that part of the Bill seeks to destroy the present long-respected system.
I again ask the Minister to produce the evidence, to which he has alluded more than once in correspondence, that shows that a substantial majority favour the proposed legislation. I shall produce evidence of those who oppose the Bill and the Minister has a duty to name those who are in favour of it. To be fair to the Minister, he has not been too dismissive of the functions of local authority building inspectors. It is right that he should acknowledge their crucial role in co-ordinating a whole range of services. Local authority building control authorities do not operate in isolation. They work closely with architects, fire brigades, environmental health officers, solicitors, engineers, education, social services, planning and finance. Local authority building inspectors liaise with outside bodies, including private architects, contractors, house owners, developers, builders, the GPO and national utilities. A crucial role performed by the local authority is as a repository of local records—plans that give details of building and construction for many years, which have proved invaluable to architects, surveyors and builders. What is to replace this comprehensive service that has always been available and very useful, other than the rights or slogans of individual organisations? Where is the evidence that the present system is inflexible, time-consuming and insensitive to builders' needs?
Where is the evidence that there is an overwhelming demand for such a change? The second main theme in parts II and III is to maximise self-regulation and to extend the privatisation of public safety standards. What is at present a service for the public good will be turned into an opportunity for private profit. That response by the Tory Party to the small minority of builders and designers who do not understand the regulations and who, rather than trying to comply with them, complain of their existence, is a sell-out and a betrayal of public trust.

Mr. Latham: Did the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) speak to any builders or designers before he decided to use such hard words?

Mr. Graham: I do not have permission to mention their names tonight, but I have spoken to local building control officers and to local builders. They do not object to the fact that the building regulations must be amended and radically brought up to date. However, we object to the dilution of those regulations as well as the abandoning of the public to the mercy and incompetence of self-certification. We cannot sacrifice consistency of interpretation and application.
The Secretary of State called for national standards and consistent enforcement. That will never be achieved with a mixture of public bodies, private individuals, professional practices and other organisations being involved in building control. When commercial and financial pressures prevail, the Secretary of State should worry about the independence of certifiers. The only way in which safety standards can be maintained is to have a democratically accountable building control service.
As to the role assumed by the National House Building Council, although there are some complementary functions, there is little duplication. The local authority


has a statutory responsibility for public health and safety. The NHBC provides a 10-year insurance cover to house buyers and employs inspectors who make only limited visits to private sector sites. Those inspectors do not ensure compliance with building regulations. The local authority building inspectors must establish whether a building has been built in accordance with its requirements. The NHBC has no experience in housing conversion work and is restricted almost exclusively to low-rise housing.
Many other areas, such as mixed developments, high-rise private sector housing and energy conservation do not come within the ambit of the NHBC. However, most importantly—I was glad that the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) referred to it—the training and qualifications required are inadequate. Local authority inspectors are trained, not only in general work, but in inspecting buildings and ensuring that they comply with the regulations. They come from the building trade and have great experience. Will the Secretary of State prescribe which examination of which professional bodies are sufficient and whether further examination to prove competence in building control is necessary? Reference was made to the eminent qualifications of architects, engineers and surveyors, but they are not sufficient and must be topped up with other qualifications.
There was also reference to the need to clarify building insurance. If the Bill becomes law, we shall move from a position of almost absolute liability guaranteed by the public sector to reliance on the private insurance market. The greatest anxiety is caused by the liability for dereliction by approved inspectors. The proposals are a recipe for confusion, litigation and delay. The Institute of Municipal Building Management has no doubts about the Bill and states:
In practice the provisions of the Bill will be unworkable, much of what is proposed would be uninsurable, and at the end of the day, authorities would be left to pick up the pieces.
The insurance industry has told me that it is crucial that we obtain clarification today and in Committee on a wide range of matters. A number of questions are already the subject of consultation or correspondence with the Minister. I remind the Minister of some of the questions that must be answered for the benefit, not just of the insurance industry, but of others such as ourselves and our constituents who will be affected.
Until such time as a market is created for the kind of insurance cover that is required, what statutory backing will there be for the aggrieved or injured party? As present cover is restricted in both time and scope, it would be wholly inadequate and would not relieve the certifier of legal liability. What is proposed? Will the Bill make insurance of the building compulsory by statute? In the view of the industry, that would raise fundamental issues.
Does the Minister concede that some form of group insurance arrangement is crucial if some of the problems of individual insurance are to be avoided? Does he recognise that the fixing of minimum indemnity limits is crucial and must form part of the legislation, that any insurance arrangements would be subject to financial limits, and that commercial insurance cannot be expected to provide protection comparable with that provided by the local authorities?
I shall deal briefly with consultation. The president of the Institute of Building Control Officers said in the winter 1982 issue of the institute's journal:

Despite the fact that the consultation on private certification indicated that virtually no one was wholly in favour of its introduction, the wording of the Bill shows that little heed was taken of any response the Department received.
What is intended in respect of the exemption of minor works? A whole new horror story and disaster awaits whole communities when the Secretary of State slashes yet again at the legal framework of protection for householders. An earlier consultation paper suggested there should be total exemption from building control of domestic and other small garages, domestic porches and outbuildings, agricultural buildings, and industrial plant buildings, with no deposit of full detailed plans. In my view, that would be madness.
Who are the majority said to be in favour of these philistine proposals? The Minister must tell us today. He must be aware of the severe criticism, ranging from outright condemnation to substantial reservations, that has reached him from so many sources. I remind him of some of them. There was criticism and rejection from the National Federation of Housing Associations, the Institute of Building Control Officers, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other local authority associations, the Institute of Municipal Building Managers, the National Association of Local Government Officers, the Consumers' Association, the insurance industry, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Greater London Surveyors Association and the Institution of Structural Engineers.
We shall be told, of course, that the proposals are supported by the National House Building Council—surprise, surprise!—by Costain, Wimpey, Wates and other organisations of that kind, as well as by a myriad of small builders, all anxious to wriggle out of the present irksome restrictions that are clearly designed for the public good.
The Secretary of State began his insidious campaign against the protection of the public in building and construction more than three years ago at the Institute of Housing conference on 27 June 1979 when he categorised his targets in the following manner:
I am looking at this because I am determined that the construction of housing and of all other buildings shall be freed of petty, unnecessary and bureaucratic restrictions.
Since then, the Secretary of State has waged war against the public sector in favour of the private sector. Where there have been no windmills to tilt at he has invented them and knocked them down with synthetic vigour. He has invented sham faults with fanatical zeal. The Secretary of State is a phoney. He has presented hopeless and dangerous proposals in the Bill that will cause untold harm to our environment and for generations to come.
The Secretary of State has invited comments and then ignored them. He has caused fear and apprehension across the spectrum of interested and caring people. He is storing up disasters which will be buried today only to emerge in the future. He has failed the nation to serve his friends. The Bill is a monument to his crass stupidity which should be rejected with contempt.
I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in voting against the Bill.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): Contrary to the impression created by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), there is substantial support for our building control proposals, as


I shall show. The House will be aware that there are two distinct and important strands to those proposals. One is the recasting of the building regulations and the other is private certification. I should like to deal with them separately. There is no doubt or dispute in the construction industry that reform of building control and the recasting of the regulations is long overdue.
I was interested in the remark by the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) when he acknowledged that the reform of the building regulations was overdue. I disagreed, however, with virtually everything else he said. The building regulations have become exceedingly complex and long. They run to more than 350 pages of secondary legislation. They are exceptionally difficult for the construction industry to use, as was brought out in the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham).
There is an imperative need to bring the building regulations up to date. They abound with anachronisms. On page 177 of the building regulations a detailed, legalistic description is given to the building industry of how it should construct earth closets in the second half of the twentieth century. That shows the need to bring the building regulations up to date.
The hon. Member for Edmonton suggested that there was a serious difference of view within the construction industry as to whether the building regulations should be brought up to date. We have had 128 responses broadly in favour of the Government's proposals and only 12 against. The bodies in favour included the AMA, the ADC, the RIBA, the RICS, the NFBTE, the House Builders Federation, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, the Institute of Building Control Officers and the Society of Chief Building Control Officers among others.

Mr. Graham: If there has been some confusion in which I have played a part, I apologise, but I do not believe that is so. I was not making a point about the building regulations. I said more than once that there was general agreement that the building regulations needed to be brought up to date. We want to know who is in favour of self-certification proposals.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it clear that he recognises that there is overwhelming support for a large section of the Bill that deals with the recasting of the building regulations.
The Opposition have suggested that the proposals represent a risk to health and safety. I cannot accept that anything in the proposals does that. The Government's position has been set out unambiguously and emphatically in the White Paper "The Future of Building Control in England and Wales". Paragraph 7 makes it clear that
The Government consider that the essential purposes of the Regulations should remain the preservation of public health and safety.
Health and safety considerations have always been, and will remain, uppermost in our minds in considering the future of the building regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), in a constructive and excellent speech, referred to the desirability of having as much similarity as possible in the building regulations throughout the United

Kingdom. As he will be aware, the Bill refers to England and Wales, and for a long time the building regulations in England and Wales have been separate from those in other parts of the United Kingdom. I draw his attention to the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 11 November about his own plans to recast the Scottish building regulations, and he emphasised that he would be doing so having in mind the proposals for England and Wales.
Northern Ireland has its own separate system, and is represented on the BRAC committee. I welcome and endorse what my hon. Friend said about that committee. It has provided, and still does, an important source of advice from a group of experts and highly qualified people. That committee has played an important role in advising us on the recasting of the building regulations.
Contrary to what the Opposition have said, and although there is controversy in this sphere, there has been support for our private certification proposals. They have been strongly welcomed by the House Builders Federation, and there is no doubt that low-rise house building is particularly suited to private certification. The CBI has responded favourably to the principle of private certification, as has the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Bodies such as the Association of Consulting Engineers and the Chartered Institute of Building, although they see difficulties arising from the law on liability for negligence, have also expressed general support for the concept of certification.
My hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet and for Melton (Mr. Latham) both referred to liability and insurance. I cannot hold out any prospects of dealing with the law on liability in the Bill. Those matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor. I can, however, emphasised that the Law Reform Committee has already consulted on the basis of limiting the period of liability for latent damage. Although I cannot anticipate the conclusions of the committee, it is clearly an open question whether the present legal liability position will endure. I should stress that it would not be right to conclude that the option of private certification—and it is only an option—cannot be used with the law in its present state.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) said that no insurers had shown an interest in providing appropriate insurance. I assure him that that is not the case. The British Insurance Association has pointed out that already in the United Kingdom there is a limited market for the provision of a form of defects insurance for commercial properties, although the BIA acknowledges that that will need to be expanded.
The National House Building Council, a body approved as an insurer by the Department of Trade, has told us that it will widen its current insurance protections for buildings that it certifies. I am glad that the BIA has said of NHBC's arrangements:
We agree that the NHBC arrangements appear to provide the framework for a satisfactory way of dealing with this area of building work".
One insurance company has written to us specifically drawing attention to a policy that it is already operating, which for a single premium provides cover to the building owner for 10 years from completion in respect of structural defects and subsidence. There is no doubt, therefore, that even within the existing legal framework, the NHBC is willing to act as a certifier of low-rise housing. Some


defects insurance is already available in the commercial sector, as well as the normal form of professional indemnity insurance which is already widely used by professional practices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Melton asked whether the insurance requirements would be attached to the building or to the certifier. We have deliberately made both possible and both may be used. The key consideration is that whichever is used, or whichever combination is used, there should be a satisfactory means of recourse for the building owner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) asked about fees for local authorities if they had to take over a building. There is no need for a fee provision because the fees payable for work will be included in the fee arrangements under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
The proposals on recasting the building regulations command widespread support in the construction industry and the building control authorities. With regard to private certification, the NHBC is ready to come forward as a certifier with insurance proposals for low-rise housing. The insurance industry is already considering how it can produce satisfactory cover for building owners.
I shall now deal with the right-to-buy provisions. It is interesting that the Opposition have been anxious—no doubt reflecting the success of the right to buy—to point out that they do not oppose the sale of council houses. An interesting distinction between not being against the sale of council houses but opposing the compulsory sale of council houses has been drawn. Conservative Members know that that is a disingenuous stance as it means that every tenant in a Labour-controlled area has no prospect of being able to buy his council house. The evidence is clearly demonstrated by what happened under Labour councils. Virtually no Labour council has sold council houses voluntarily. As a result of the right to buy legislation, any number of council tenants have had the opportunity to buy for the first time.
Even outside Labour-controlled areas, the Labour Party, having read its policy documents, is committed to removing the options from those tenants who have them and ending sales at discounts.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that confirmation. The Labour Party has also said that it will oblige council tenants to sell their houses back to their councils when they sell. That has been stated clearly. That removes the council tenant's right to sell his house or flat at the price of his own chosing.
The Bill makes three major extensions to the right to buy. One group that will benefit is those in leasehold property. That will be welcomed strongly by those who live on land that is held on leasehold by the local authority. It is long overdue. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) that the leasehold enfranchisement provisions will apply to houses. That is the reason for the 22-year minimum length of lease for houses.
I cannot accept Opposition Members' criticisms of the proposals with regard to charitable housing associations. We are simply extending the right to buy to dwellings that have been publicly funded by housing association grant—funded in exactly the same way as dwellings that

are owned by non-charitable housing associations where the right to buy already exists. It is illogical to allow one tenant in a dwelling that is provided with housing association grant to have the right to buy and to deny that right to a tenant who is living in a house that is funded by housing association grant simply because the latter housing association is constituted as a charity.

Mrs. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Stanley: I should like to continue.

Mrs. Taylor: May I make just one point?

Mr. Stanley: No. I have given way a great deal, and I should like to continue. I understand that some people in the housing association movement are opposed to giving the right to buy to the tenants of charitable housing associations.
We have heard nothing from Labour Members about the position of tenants themselves. We have heard any number of arguments from those who represent the housing associations as landlords. To redress that balance, I should like to cite one letter that I have received in the last few days—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are not interested in hearing about the position of tenants. I have received a letter from the Dartwood tenants association in Leeds. It reads:
Following a meeting of our tenants association, I have been asked to write to you to say we think you should reject the appeals of the charitable housing associations who object to giving their tenants the equivalent right to buy and we would wish you to proceed. We are writing as there will no doubt be considerable pressure to change this. We believe that giving us the right to buy will improve the quality of living".
No real arguments have been put forward by Opposition Members against this proposal.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way. He must be allowed to proceed. It is the right of any hon. Member to continue, if that is his wish, when he has the floor.

Mr. Stanley: Another area extended by the Bill is that of shared ownership. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) asked if the minimum 50 per cent. threshold for a shared ownership sale could be reduced. The threshold can be altered by an order under schedule 5 to the Bill. It is not necessary always to continue with the 50 per cent. threshold.
The remaining right-to-buy provisions of the Bill deal mainly with ways in which Labour councils have sought to obstruct and to deter tenants from exercising their legal rights. I recall the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on Second Reading of the 1980 Housing Bill when he purported to give a blow-by-blow account of the obstacle course that was supposed to be going to be created by the Bill and that the tenant would have to complete before he succeeded in exercising his right to buy.
The real obstacle course for tenants has not been created by the Bill. It has been created by Labour councils that have used every possible device to try to stop or dissuade council tenants from exercising their legal rights. Some Labour councils have engaged in what I can only describe as non-stop harassment of tenants trying to buy their homes. This was revealed vividly in the speeches of my


hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright).
Some of the harassment has taken a petty form, such as refusing to give tenants even the statutory right-to-buy application form, refusing to tell tenants when they have made a trivial mistake in filling in the form and giving the form back to the tenant with no explanation. There are councils that have stopped repairs to homes where tenants have applied to buy. There are councils which say that they will not give their normal discretionary improvement grant to those who have had the nerve to exercise the legal right to buy their homes. There are councils which have deputed members of their staff to try to persuade council tenants to abandon their applications. Happily, they have proved singularly unpersuasive.
There have been much more serious instances of obstruction with which we shall be dealing in the Bill. There are councils that have refused to process perfectly valid right-to-buy applications. My right hon. and hon. Friends can be assured that in every case that has come to our notice we have made the council proceed with such sales. There are councils that have served invalid completion notices. In one case, the tenant had not even got the legal documents to complete the sale. We shall be dealing with that in the Bill.
There are councils that have been trying to impose unreasonable service charges and unduly restrictive covenants that would put a former council tenant as a home owner in a worse position, for example in his right to improve his home, than if he had remained a council tenant. We shall return to both those points in the Bill.
There has also been the singularly odious practice of Norwich city council holding to ransom tenants who wanted exchanges by allowing them to get an exchange only if at the same time they gave up their right to buy. The Bill will make that practice illegal, as the House has been informed. Those forms of obstruction and browbeating are an unacceptable way to treat individual citizens who are simply exercising the legal rights that have been given to them by Parliament.
Some authorities have treated their tenants unacceptably. I received a letter from a council tenant in Sheffield. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The letter is telling. The tenant wrote:
From the people of Sheffield who have applied for the Right to Buy here is a cry for help. My husband and I put our names forward in November 1980, one month after this had become law and we are still waiting.
I should like to be able to help that couple to obtain their legal right to own their home. I am ready to do so instantly but I cannot do so because of the next devastating sentence in that lady's letter, which reads as follows:
I wish to make this plea anonymous otherwise we may get reprisals and that would make our chances of ever owning the house nil.
It is a dismal reflection on the Labour Party that people are afraid even to disclose their names when exercising their legal right to buy.
However, the political enthusiasm of the Labour Party for denying council tenants the right to buy seems to evaporate with remarkable speed when certain individual council tenants who happen to be prominent local members of the Labour Party come to decide as individuals whether they should buy their own houses.

Over the past two years it has been interesting that the determination of the Labour Party to repeal the right to buy has been exceeded only by the determination of Labour councillors to make certain that as council tenants they buy their houses while Tories are still in Government and the going is good. They produce many interesting reasons for that.
For example, when the Labour vice-chairman of the housing committee in Swindon applied to buy his council house he decided to put his best foot forward and declared:
I am doing the Council a favour by buying my house.
In Bassetlaw, the Labour chairman of the housing committee, who is strongly opposed to the sale of council houses, was shot down in flames by his admirable wife who declared:
Don has his opinions but so have I. I am not having him bringing politics into the house. We discussed the situation, had a vote and Don was outvoted three to one.
An equally staunch lady emerged in North Tyneside in the person of battling granny, Labour councillor Mrs. Mollie Brown, who when threatened with the sack for buying her council house hit back and said:
The rest can resign but I won't.
She reminded two of her Labour colleagues that they had already bought their council houses 10 years ago.
Last but by no means least in the rush in the Labour Party to exercise the right to buy we have none other than the election agent at the last general election of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). [HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray."]
It is clear that even without the extensions of the right to buy in the Bill, our expectations of the demand for the right to buy will be more than fulfilled. By the end of September over 400,000 council, new town and housing association dwellings had passed into home ownership during the Government's period of office. The right to buy is having a dramatically beneficial effect. It is giving council estates greater variety and appeal. It is giving individual families greater housing choice, financial security and mobility.
The right to buy is one of the most far-reaching and beneficial social revolutions of this century. It needs to be extended still further. The Bill will enable that to be done. I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 203.

Division No. 14]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Aitken, Jonathan
Blackburn, John


Alexander, Richard
Blaker, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Body, Richard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Andrew


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Bradley, Tom


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brinton, Tim


Banks, Robert
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Beith, A. J.
Brooke, Hon Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Brotherton, Michael


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Best, Keith
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Browne, John (Winchester)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Bruce-Gardyne, John






Bryan, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Hannam, John


Buck, Antony
Haselhurst, Alan


Budgen, Nick
Hastings, Stephen


Bulmer, Esmond
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Butler, Hon Adam
Hawksely, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Cartwright, John
Heddle, John



Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert


Churchill, W. S.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hooson, Tom


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hordern, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cope, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Corrie, John
Howells, Geraint


Costain, Sir Albert
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Critchley, Julian
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Crouch, David
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Dover, Denshore
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Durant, Tony
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Mrs Jill


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Knox, David


Eyre, Reginald
Lang, Ian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Lawrence, Ivan


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Farr, John
Lee, John


Fell, Sir Anthony
Le Marchant, Spencer


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John


Forman, Nigel
Luce, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McCrindle, Robert


Freud, Clement
Macfarlane, Neil


Fry, Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McQuarrie, Albert


Ginsburg, David
Madel, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Major, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marlow, Antony


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Goodlad, Alastair
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Gow, Ian
Mawby, Ray


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mayhew, Patrick


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mellor, David


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, Harry
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mitchell, R. C, (Soton Itchen)


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Grylls, Michael
Moore, John


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)





Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Smith, Dudley


Mudd, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Murphy, Christopher
Speller, Tony


Myles, David
Spence, John


Neale, Gerrard
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Nelson, Anthony
Sporat, Iain


Neubert, Michael
Squire, Robin


Newton, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor



Nott, Rt Hon John
Stanley, John


Ogden, Eric
Steel, Rt Hon David


Onslow, Cranley
Steen, Anthony


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stevens, Martin


Osborn, John
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Tapsell, Peter


Parris, Matthew
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patten, John (Oxford)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Pawsey, James
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Penhaligon, David
Thompson, Donald


Percival, Sir Ian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Malcolm


Pink, R. Bonner
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pitt, William Henry
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Porter, Barry
Trippier, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Proctor, K. Harvey
Viggers, Peter


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Waddington, David


Rathbone, Tim
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waldegrave, Hon William


Renton, Tim
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, B. (Perth)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waller, Gary


Rifkind, Malcolm
Walters, Dennis


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Ward, John


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Watson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wellbeloved, James


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Wells, Bowen


Roper, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wheeler, John


Rossi, Hugh
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rost, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Royle, Sir Anthony
Wickenden, Keith


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wolfson, Mark


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Carol Mather and


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. Anthony Berry.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman


Adams, Allen
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Allaun, Frank
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Alton, David
Campbell, Ian


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cant, R. B.


Ashton, Joe
Carmichael, Neil


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Cohen, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cook, Robin F.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cowans, Harry


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)






Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cryer, Bob
Haynes, Frank


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Heffer, Eric S.


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Dalyell, Tam
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Home Robertson, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Homewood, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hooley, Frank


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hoyle, Douglas


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Dixon, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dobson, Frank
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Dormand, Jack
Janner, Hon Greville


Dubs, Alfred
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Duffy, A. E. P.
John, Brynmor


Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Eadie, Alex
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Eastham, Ken
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


English, Michael
Lambie, David


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lamond, James


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Leighton, Ronald


Evans, John (Newton)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Ewing, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Field, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Fitch, Alan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Flannery, Martin
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McCartney, Hugh


Ford, Ben
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Foulkes, George
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McKelvey, William


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McMahon, Andrew


George, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McWilliam, John


Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Graham, Ted
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Hardy, Peter
Maxton, John


Harman, Harriet (Peckham)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Meacher, michael


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)





Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Newens, Stanley
Stallard, A. W.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stoddart, David


O'Halloran, Michael
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Palmer, Arthur
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Park, George
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Parker, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Parry, Robert
Tilley, John


Pavitt, Laurie
Tinn, James


Pendry, Tom
Torney, Tom


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Prescott, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Race, Reg
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Watkins, David


Richardson, Jo
Weetch, Ken


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Welsh, Michael


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
White, Frank R.


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Whitehead, phillip


Robertson, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Rooker, J. W.
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H(H'ton)


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Ryman, John
Woodall, Alec


Sever, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Sheerman, Barry
Wright, Sheila


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Short, Mrs Renée
Tellers for the Noes:


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. Derek Foster and


Silverman, Julius
Mr. George Morton.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Education may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half past Eleven o'clock or for one and half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Lang.]

Orders of the Day — Division Lists

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Division List for the important vote at 10 o'clock last night contains at least two omissions. It omits my name and that of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell). I understand that the only way in which the Division List can be corrected, other than months later in the bound volume, is by means of a point of order. Will you examine in due course whether there is not some more efficient and automatic way in which omissions from Division Lists can be corrected in the following day's Hansard? That is particularly important on matters such as this, where there is considerable public interest in whether hon. Members vote.

Mr. Speaker: I shall look again at the matter. I realise that hon. Members who have taken part in a Division, especially on a major Bill such as we had last night and have had again tonight, want their names correctly recorded.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING AND BUILDING CONTROL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the rights of secure tenants in England and Wales and, in connection therewith, to amend the objects of certain housing associations and housing trusts and to amend the law of England and Wales relating to the supervision of building work, the building regulations and building control, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act and any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment;
(2) the payment out of or into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Lang.]

Orders of the Day — Education (Mandatory Awards)

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I beg to move,
That the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 954), dated 12th July 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th July, in the last Session of Paliament, be revoked.
Labour Members have fulfilled their pledge to bring he regulation to the House after the Government's ignominious defeat in Committee. That is the first time the Government have suffered such a defeat on a statutory instrument since 1980.
We meet today in a rather more full concourse than on that occasion. I am glad to see so many right hon. and hon. Members here today, some of whom hold, or have held, high office, rectorial and otherwise, in our universities and colleges. I am also glad to see some of the right hon. and hon. Members who were not present in Committee when the Government were defeated. It may well be that they will be able to tell us tonight something in explanation of their absence on that occasion. We noted the absence of the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), Saffron Waldron (Mr. Haselhurst), Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) and Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee). Silence is eloquent—

Sir William van Strubenzee: May we start by getting the terminology right? It was not a Standing Committee but a Statutory Instruments Committee. That is quite different.

Mr. Whitehead: At least I was there. The hon. Gentleman was not.
We are endeavouring to discover why so many Conservative Members chose to be away. In my view, silence is eloquent and absence sometimes makes its presence felt. On that occasion, the Under-Secretary of State was left with his faithful Sancho Panza, the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey), and little other succour.
I am heartened by the turn-out tonight. This is an important matter. Nothing has changed since the debate on 26 October, except for the worse. We are now holding the debate in the context of the announcement made in the Queen's Speech about the education mandatory awards for this year. Therefore, in a sense we are now debating two sets of award, not one, although within the rules of order we are discussing those covered by statutory instrument No. 954.
We must see the debate in the general context of the assault that there has been on higher and further education in Britain under the Government. There are fewer places available. The Association of University Teachers calculates that there are about 20,000 fewer places in the universities over the past three years and the public sector seems braced now for a 14 per cent. fall in numbers on a much shorter time scale. In addition, entry qualifications are rising. Those who share our concern that the marginal student is thus being excluded—the student who has struggled extremely hard to get to university or college—are particularly alarmed.
There are also fewer grants. Local government cuts have left discretionary grants decimated. In some areas—I draw this curious anomaly to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State and, indeed, to that of the Secretary of State, who I see is putting in a stint, if I may call it that,


on the Front Bench—students who have been refused a local education authority discretionary grant for a local course go elsewhere, if they have the necessary academic qualifications, for a more expensive mandatory award. That is a greater expense to the community and has happened because of the foolish cutback in local education authority discretionary awards.
The other matter which we are more particularly discussing today is the hardship suffered by students on mandatory grants. They have had an extremely hard time from the Under-Secretary of State. He is known in his Department by the acronym PUSS. In this pantomime, he has been "Puss in Boots", indeed, because he has trodden all over the students. He has a reputation as a nice and humane man and, on the whole, that is deserved, but, in the arguments with the National Union of Students last year and this year, the great difficulty has been to persuade him of the levels of hardship which are being suffered at present.
What is the position at the moment? The real level of the student grant has fallen, is falling and will continue to fall for the next academic year. It now stands at about 90 per cent. of its value when the Government came to office. I have to concede the fact that in other areas where recipients of Government largesse—if I can so miscall it—are involved, there has been an attempt to make up and replace some of the real value that has been lost over the past few years. The students have not had the benefit of that.
Figures have been provided for me by the Library. The figures for 1982–83, expressed at constant 1979 prices, show that there was a real increase in the value of the pension but a real decrease in the value of the student grants of about 2·8 per cent.—2·6 per cent. for those in London. The Government are doing something about that. They are going to claw back a good deal of the substantial gain that the pensioners might have made, but there will be no need to claw back anything from the students because there is nothing there to claw back.
The students have been cheated out of the support that they should have had from the Government, not only this year and last year but they can look ahead and see that it is true for the next academic year and the one after that. The freezing of the minimum level of parental contribution—the threshold—at £6,600 dragged in about another 20,000 paying parents in this academic year. That figure was conceded by the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on the statutory instrument upstairs. The evidence shows that a number of those parents, and many others in the higher categories, do not pay up. Those parents do not provide for their children the amount of money they need to survive at university. The student goes short.
According to the calculations of the National Union of Students—the figures are disputed only in the smallest percentage terms when Government apologists address themselves to the problem—about 70 per cent. of parents pay none or only part of what they should pay to their student offspring. Tonight, I have received details of a student at Westfield college who has had to give up her course because she has received none of her adjudged parental contribution for this academic year. This is particularly hard on those whose relations with their

parents for one reason or another—it does not necessarily mean antagonism between parents and offspring—are difficult.
A constituent of mine in Derbyshire has waited for more than a month for the payment of his mandatory grant by the local education authority because of confusion over what his parents should be paying. This is a double bind for the student. He is caught because he is not receiving the contribution from his parents, but, quite often, because there is confusion about what that contribution should be, his local education authority award is being paid late. Pressure has been put on the ability of the LEAs to pay, and all too often they have held back in the payment of mandatory grants. Therefore, there is a double hardship for the students concerned.
Thirdly and finally in this area of hardship, there are fees. The Department of Education and Science set its grant for this academic year at 4 per cent.—well below the retail price index—and ignored the hard evidence that many college fees would be set above the RPI. The figures have not been challenged and they suggest that, apart from the extraordinary and anomalous case of Wolverhampton polytechnic, which has levied an increase of 38 per cent., there have been increases in fees of 35 per cent. at St. Andrew's, 20 per cent. at Leeds, 16 per cent. at the Royal Holloway college, 10 per cent. at Newcastle polytechnic, 10 per cent. at North Staffordshire polytechnic, and as much as 18 per cent. in the public sector at Coventry polytechnic. These are sharp increases.
Account must also be taken of the fact that many students are living in holiday towns and seaside towns, where they enjoy no protection as rent-paying tenants. The rents that they are paying have been increased far beyond the rise in the RPI. Students have suffered real hardship in this respect.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Bearing in mind the validity of the catalogue of hardship that the hon. Gentleman is outlining and the fact that we are faced with the necessity to curb the growth of public expenditure, can I rely upon him to support my motion, should it be reached on Friday, that calls for the introduction of student loans?

Mr. Whitehead: No. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be disappointed in that as in much else from me. I do not wish to be drawn into discussing student loans because it is an issue which, to some degree, is outside the general tenor of the regulations. However, it is my view that student loans will act as a disincentive to the sort of students whom we wish to encourage into the State system of education. The hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that there has been a long tradition of opposition to the imposition of a student loan scheme on the Conservative Benches. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Wokingham, for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and others for taking that stance. Such a scheme would cause hardship for "marginal" students, the ones who are finding it especially hard to get by. That is almost the unanimous view of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and so it should be.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the major problem for students in the past was that they could not manage on their grants and so they had to work during their vacations? They now have


even smaller grants and, because of the Government's policy, they have virtually no opportunity to get work to supplement their grants.

Mr. Whitehead: I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument. The Secretary of State, who is with us in the flesh, has erred in telling students—it is fine advice from him—that they should find part-time jobs. One of the occupants of the Social Democratic Party's Bench—he is the only SDP member in his place tonight—has said that there are 3·5 million reasons why students cannot get part-time jobs. I refer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). That is the answer to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and I am obliged to him for intervening.
The Government have been warned time after time of the consequences of their actions. During the stewardship of the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), it seemed that the Government had come to grasp the nature of the problem and the need for some concession to be made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote to the then president of the National Union of Students, David Aaronvitch, on 15 June 1981, after a protest had been made by the students,
If, as you suggest, these estimates result in an underestimate of the true cost of students because of rises in hall fees and other students' costs then I would hope that we could take this into account when we come, during the course of next year, to assess students' grants for the academic year 1982–83.
After that announcement—there were further changes in the Government and a general hardening of attitudes—the awards for 1982–83 were announced. Not only the students, but the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals was so horrified by the evidence of possible hardship, that it wrote to the Secretary of State:
We are astonished that the decision regarding the grant for 1982–83 was taken before the results of the Committee's annual survey of board and lodging costs could be made available to the Department and before the customary meeting could be arranged between Ministers and representatives of the committee … On the basis of information provided by universities it is estimated that in the current year the grant is already 18 per cent. below the level which would be needed to enable students to meet the cost of ordinary maintenance including the economic cost of board and lodging. The 4 per cent. increase in grants for 1982–83, which is 6 per cent. below the Government's own estimate of inflation in the coming year is bound to lead to considerable financial hardship for students.
What response did that receive? Almost none. What attempt has there been to honour the pledge given by the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn to the president of the National Union of Students more than one year ago? Absolutely none. What independent assessment has the Department of Education and Science made of student costs, whether the student lives at home or away? The answer appears to be "Very little".
The Under-Secretary of State was unmoved. He told students on 11 August this year that there was no question of an increase in the student award for the academic year 1982–83. He told us in Committee:
No one would claim that the student settlement which we were able to make for 1982–83 was generous.
It is not generous. The best that he could say was that during the past 10 years the away student award had dropped by 3·7 per cent. outside London, while the home student was

better off than the youngster without a job living at home on supplementary benefit."—[Official Report, Fifth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c., 26 October 1982; c. 6–10.]
That is great news. The response to it from the student body would be "Thanks, but no thanks". It is not good enough, and it is not good enough for the Under-Secretary of State to repeat such arguments today.
The debate has rolled on. We are not only considering the regulations covered in the instrument for 1982–83 but we are considering them with the benefit of our knowledge of the hardship that will be caused by a grant increase of 4 per cent. for the next academic year after that. That is 4 per cent. for the one-third of students who receive full mandatory grants. Many other students must suffer a net loss. The parental threshold increased by 8 per cent., but that simply freezes the injustice of last year when the threshold was jammed. The number of students' parents who are assessed will stay at about its historical high of 240,000, out of 340,000 students who receive some form of mandatory grant.
I also wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State about the proposed travel allowance, mentioned in the various statements made in the debates on the Loyal Address, as part of the package for students in the coming year. I am profoundly suspicious of calculations for a travel allowance that may penalise students who live away from home but who must travel to their place of study. We know that the Secretary of State is considering—the matter was aired again in circles close to him—a cut in the number of students who are studying away from home. All that I wish to hear from the Minister tonight is that the new travel regulations are not a means of bringing in that proposition by stealth. Many people, especially in the National Union of Students, believe that to be true.
The National Union of Students asked for £5 a week to return to 1980–81 levels in real terms. They are receiving an increase of 24p a day as a result of the regulations to be promulgated following the announcement. It also asked for an increase in the means-tested threshold to £9,000, which would release about 60,000 parents from the need to contribute a proportion of the financial support of their offspring.
There has been no real response to those proposals or to the students' demands, which I personally welcome and endorse, that an allowance of £25 per week should be paid to all students in non-advanced further education. Those students have been most severely hit by the local education authority squeeze on financial support and by the imbalance in favour of degree courses and other advanced further education that has always existed in the system in this country.
The hon. Member for Cambridge is muttering in a confused fashion. Does he wish to intervene? It seems that he does not.
We shall have to judge the Government's performance on what they have already said and what the Minister says today about their approach to student support. In our view, their approach has been consistently mean-spirited throughout the past few years. They have made the gaining of entry into higher and further education harder and they have ensured that more people are squeezed out when they get there. As always, the cost falls on the marginal student who has struggled the hardest to qualify and now has to struggle the hardest to survive.
We shall be voting to revoke the regulations because we recognise them for what they are—one more step on the road to increased elitism in education, where those who already have receive support, those who might have can seek loans, and those who have nothing but aspiration and effort to offer are shown the back of a lengthening queue. In doing so, we shall be voting for wider categories of student support and not only for justice for existing students whose support is inadequate. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will join us in the Lobby.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): We seem to have these debates in duplicate. We have a small debate upstairs with the SDP, which seems to understand the procedures of the House and gets to the prayer first. Then we have a later, bigger debate on the Floor of the House for the Labour Party to catch up.
During the moving and jolly speech of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) was by no means muttering in a confused way. He was muttering in a very exact way that the hon. Gentleman's speech was typical of a former chairman of the Oxford Conservative Association. In a sense, that was perhaps a rather offensive sally from my hon. Friend. However, we hope that some day the hon. Member for Derby, North will return to his former allegiance, although I predict that there will be a passage through a party sitting below the Gangway on the way.
In the casual way that is possible when in Opposition, the hon. Member for Derby, North spent about £700 million in his speech. That is the luxury of Opposition, which we shall do our best to ensure that he enjoys for as long as possible. Nevertheless, we must consider this matter in the general context of the country's economic situtation.
We are primarily concerned today with the education regulations for 1982 and the grant settlement for the academic year 1982–83. Since we discussed the matter last December, when the rates were first announced, the whole context in which we are discussing it has changed dramatically because of the toughness shown by the Government in relation to public expenditure. At that time, we feared—we did not try to hide this—that the real drop in the value of the award in 1982 as compared with 1981 would be about 6 per cent. because the inflation prediction was 10 per cent. Happily, that prediction has proved false and with inflation now around 7 per cent. the real drop in value that we feared will be very much less.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is still a drop.

Mr. Waldegrave: We have the Government's undertaking to control public expenditure to thank for that change from which students and everyone else have benefited.
In the interests of securing a stable economy for the well-being of all, we saw no reason why students in the 18-plus age group, who are still the best treated of their age group, should be wholly exempted from the pressures on public expenditure that others have had to face.
The full-time student of 18-plus is still by far the best treated of his age group. The hon. Member for Derby, North was kind enough to quote comparisons that I had given before with those people on other forms of Government support. That tells only a small part of the story, because that student at university or polytechnic institute is having large sums from the public purse spent on free tuition. That might cost up to £10,000 a place for a medical student and £4,000 a place for the average student.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: How many aspiring students are there from towns like the hon. Gentleman's and mine who would like to be in the privileged position about which he is boasting compared with three years ago?

Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman will restrain his enthusiasm. I shall shortly tell him. The answer may be not quite what he expects.
The decline in the rate of inflation has meant that the award has not fallen by as much as we feared. If one takes the index 10 years ago, from 1972–73, the value of the London award has increased. With the 1972–73 index at 100, the London award is now worth 106 and the present value of the elsewhere award is 96. That has dropped, but the Opposition's catastrophic language does not reflect the reality of the position.
There have been interesting cases before the courts involving European students seeking to come here to gain support from our mandatory award system through one loophole or another. Our student award system is the most generous of any European country.
The hon. Member for Derby, North asked about participation rates. The figures for the academic year 1982–83 will show that there is no evidence that the level of the student award has deterred students from seeking higher education places. The final figure for the participation rate for 1981–82—the figures are just coming out—will show that it is the highest ever, at 13·2 per cent. The figures will, moreover, show that the qualified participation rate is the highest ever at 87·9 per cent. We have done better in finding places for students than the Labour Government did, and that should calm the worries of the hon. Member for Derby, North.

Mr. Whitehead: If the Government are doing so much better, how is it that in answer to me on 8 March this year the hon. Gentleman suggested that the age participation rate would fall to 91·7 per cent. in the academic year after that and 11·2 per cent. for 1984–85. Where is the triumph in that?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman can keep to the out-of-date figures if he likes, but I can improve on best estimates by giving the facts. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will prefer the facts. He will find that the participation rate this year will not have fallen, so he should not worry.
There has been a limitation on university places undertaken by the UGC to preserve the research output of universities. Despite the pressure on the recurrent grants of the local authority institutions, those institutions have managed to take in large numbers of students, which perhaps shows that there must have been some slack in the system before. The Robbins principle has therefore been maintained.

Mr. Christopher Price: The Under-Secretary gave evidence to the Select Committee that the age participation rate was declining, according to the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has just given. Is he now saying that the age participation rate is declining, and is he using a different formula—the qualifying participation rate—to try to get out of it?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the relationship between the age participation rate and the qualified particiption rate. In those figures we were predicting—under the pressure of the savings that we had to make out of local authority colleges—how we thought they would be able to respond. There was much more room for students in those colleges than we had predicted and they have followed the age profile round. I am therefore able to comfort the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) by saying that the Robbins principle has been maintained—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Reality may not seem possible to Labour Members, but reality sometimes breaks in upon them.
Labour Members may be interested in some of the detailed changes, some of which are important. In addition to the increases in the main rates, we have been able to respond to a number of representations. For example, we responded to the National Bureau for Handicapped Students, and increased the allowance for disabled students in schedule 2, paragraph 15, from £250 to £500.

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Minister wants to get through this embarrassing speech as quickly as possible, but he is rattling through it at such a pace that Back Benchers cannot understand one syllable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order on which I can rule.

Mr. Waldegrave: In case I was going too fast for the hon. Member, I shall read that sentence again, but this time more slowly. As a result of representations from the National Bureau for Handicapped Students, the allowance for disabled students was doubled from £250 to £500. Furthermore, the allowance for dependants was substantially increased, not only by the percentage increase in supplementary benefit but by £70 in respect of each dependant child.
As well as an allowance of £140 per child under 11 years of age, there was an allowance in the 1981–82 academic year of £365 per child aged 11 to 16, and £580 for a child aged 17 and over. We have increased those. There have been a number of improvements in other rates of grant. For example, by an amendment to the 1981 regulations, refugees and "asylees" who had interrupted, without completing, their studies abroad during the 12 months immediately preceding their entry to the United Kingdom, were given exemption from the previous study rules. In response to representations from the World University Service and the British Refugee Council, the 1982 regulations increased the 12 month period to four years. That was generally welcomed.
The provisions contained in article 3.2 were amended to provide that a period during which a student—

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is now speaking so slowly that he is trying to squeeze out Back Benchers who wish to participate in the one hour of the debate that remains.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be better if we were to allow the Minister to continue. I remind the House that many hon. Members hope to speak and the debate must end at 11.46 pm. I therefore hope that interruptions will be brief.

Mr. Waldegrave: It may not appear so to the hon. Gentleman, but matters such as refugee status are of some importance. The improvements that we have been able to make should be of some satisfaction to those concerned with these matters.
There have been a number of other improvements. For example, the provisions of article 3·2(d) of the 1981 regulations allow a period spent by a married student caring for a dependent child to count towards the attainment of independent status. These were extended so that any student who has the care of a dependent under the age of 18 can benefit under the regulations.
There are other improvements, but, lest I should irritate the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East even further, I shall not repeat them. This shows how wrong are the charges that there is an animus against students among Conservatives. We have taken care to respond to a number of specific recommendations and representations—

Mr. Whitehead: From rich students.

Mr. Waldegrave: I have been talking about "asylees" and refugees. The hon. Gentleman trivialises an important debate.
Another matter that should be reported to the House derives from the intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) who, unlike the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman), takes an interest in the regulations. In one important aspect, he has made sure that we have improved them further. I refer to the relief for life assurance. After correspondence with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, we agreed that it would be sensible to bring the treatment of life assurance premiums into line with revenue calculations of netted income.
We made a change in the regulations from last year. The hon. Gentleman wrote to me first, saying that he thought that we had got it right. It turns out that we have drafted it incorrectly. We shall therefore introduce amending regulations so that local authorities may be clear about the matter. We are informed that they will be able to continue to do what they are now doing. We will then have to consider the matter further for next year and introduce more amendments so that the situation is as both the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and the Government want it—properly in line with the taxation authorities. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman as he has ensured that we have significantly improved the regulations.
The heat and passion generated in an election year to promise that [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I must correct myself. The heat and passion generated in what may be an election year by all the Opposition parties to gather in a useful lobby is blatant. I know that £600 million or so, which is the cost of the £25 per person allowance, is just


small change compared with the sort of money that the Labour Party is talking about, but we must remember that we are talking about the real world.
We are trying to take the higher education system and an increased number of students through a period of severe world recession. We are proud that we are maintaining a high number of students in the higher education system. We believe that that must demonstrate that the grant is reasonably adequate. Nobody is under any misapprehension but that there are problems for those students who do not receive the parental contribution. I urge parents to make those contributions.

Mr. Whitehead: As the hon. Gentleman suggests that the Opposition want to splash money on people who do not get any grant for non-advanced further education, will he tell the House whether he is satisfied about the lack of support that people in those deserving categories get? I think that he is not.

Mr. Waldegrave: If there were £600 million to spend without damaging important priorities elsewhere, this would be one serious candidate. It is the luxury of Oppositions to be able to spend the same money on everything. No doubt it comes from the cancellation of Trident yet again.
No doubt the Opposition will shed many crocodile tears tonight. We will hear of students who suffer hardship. There may be a few. There were a few under the regime of the Labour Government. The House can be assured that within the constraints of the resources that are available, a reasonable deal on student awards has been laid before the House. I can ask my hon. Friends and some of those Opposition Members on whom reality may still impinge to vote for the regulations with every confidence.

Mr. David Steel: The Under-Secretary of State began his speech with a rather feeble jest at the expense of Opposition parties. Unfortunately, he never seemed to recover his composure.
The speech to which we have listened was a mixture of levity and complacency throughout. It is a great pity that nowhere did there appear a tinge of regret or a note of penitence about the blatant reneging, for example, on the undertaking that was given by the Secretary of State on the level of grants being reviewed if the level of inflation was found to be much higher than the level of grant.
All of that has been abandoned and now, to add insult to injury, before the House has the chance to debate the 1982–83 level of grant, we have a unilateral announcement of the level for 1983–84 without even the normal courteous meeting that has been held by successive Administrations with the National Union of Students.
Like the Under-Secretary of State, I wish to refer to our procedures. Nearly four months have elapsed since my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal and Social Democratic Parties tabled the prayer against the regulations. Yet the regulations are now in force despite the defeat of the Government in the Committee. Hon. Members should take note of this defect in our procedures. If a statutory instrument is defeated in a Committee charged by the House to examine it, there should be an

automatic right to a debate on the Floor of the House. There should be no further argument between the parties and the Whips. We should review our procedures.
In my capacity as rector of Edinburgh university, I received a petition on Monday signed by 3,000 students at the university on this issue. My remarks are not based solely on my experience at Edinburgh, which is direct and continuous, but on visits that I have made to six other universities in the last few weeks. I do not know what is the experience of the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State, but I find a genuine sense of grievance among the student population about the level of grant. It is not, as the Under-Secretary suggests, that the student population believes that it should be exempt, privileged, or above the sacrifices made by the rest of the country.
The undergraduate population, so far as I can make out, is willing to share the sacrifices, but figures debated in Committee, which will no doubt be produced again in this debate, show that students are being asked to accept an excessive reduction in their standard of living compared with some others in our society. There is a parallel with the National Health Service workers. In both cases, groups of people in our society who are less well off than others are being squeezed under the alleged non-incomes policy of the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) read out in Committee the letter, to which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has referred, from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The committee comprises people who are reasonably remunerated but who have a feeling for their students. If the Under-Secretary is to dismiss the concern expressed by hon. Members, he cannot surely dismiss concern expressed by the committee about the real reduction in living standards suffered by the student population.
Student grants are now worth in real terms only 81 per cent. of what they were in my own time in 1962. The 1983–84 determination has been made. With inflation coming down—we hope that this continues—the gap between the inflation rate and the grant rate next year will not be so wide. There is, however, no attempt to recompense the student population for the severe fall experienced this time.
The real fall in the cost of living affects issues such as the mortgage rate. Few students benefit from that. The real cost of living index of the student population—books, fees, student lodgings and private lodgings—is much higher than the standard cost of living rate. The University of Edinburgh says that, although it has done its best to keep down the level of hall residence fee, the increase has been 12 per cent. this year. There is a gap between the grant level and what the Government will accept as the real cost of living for students.
There is another big difference between the plight of the student today and that of the student of my time 20 years ago. In my time at Edinburgh university, I did at least five different vacation jobs. Time is too short for me to expand on that statement. There is no prospect today of a student having the opportunity every year, without fail, to get employment. It would be outrageous if they did, because of the state of unemployment. Therefore, the opportunity for today's student to supplement what is a basic subsistence grant with vacation work is severely limited. The Government should take that into account.


I remind the Government what they said in their manifesto at the last election:
Much of our higher education in Britain has a world-wide reputation for its quality. We shall seek to ensure that this excellence is maintained.
One of the first things that the Government did was to increase the level of overseas student fees so that our world-wide reputation was immediately dented. Now, apart from the cuts in university expenditure, life has been made extremely difficult for the student population.
The Secretary of State's latest suggestion is that students should try to borrow the money. One of the things that slightly worries me about the banking system is that there is a great deal of pressure on new students to join certain banks. All sorts of free offers are made. However, no bank in its senses will consider lending large sums of money to undergraduates when not even graduates are certain of getting jobs so that they can pay back the loans. Therefore, the idea of moving to even an unofficial loan system, let alone the official one on which the Secretary of State is speculating, is not even a starter.
I and my colleagues will firmly oppose any attempt by the Government to move from the traditional grant system to a loan system for the reason not that it would affect about two thirds of the student population, but that it would affect lower income families, who would be terrified of taking on such a loan. As north of the border we have an egalitarian tradition in higher education, we would resent any change to a loan system.
In the meantime, faced with the belated opportunity that the House has to deal with the current level of grant for this academic year, we should join as many hon. Members as we can muster in the Lobby against the regulations.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I shall comment on the concluding remarks of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) in a moment. First, I shall say a word or two about why we are debating this subject at this time. We had better get the record clear. It is important that we should.
We are debating regulations that are already operating. We know perfectly well that if we were to upset them that would cause chaos in education. Normally we would have debated such a matter in the summer. The reason why we did not do so was the sheer concentrated incompetence of the Labour Front Bench. Labour Members are the nicest set of people. They are some of the most delightful Members of the House, but as an Opposition in educational terms—and I have sat in the House for some years—

Mr. Sheerman: Too long.

Sir William van Straubanzee: We can deal with that matter next time.
I have never experienced an Opposition who have missed so many educational tricks. The truth is that they failed to put down a Prayer at the right time. That is why we are now debating the regulations at the wrong time.
We get a good idea of the Opposition's approach to education when we learn that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), having done so well in his election, is to be promoted from education. He is to go up. It is a sad commentary on the subject that that is the approach.
There is no group of people that benefit more from a successful economic policy that controls the increase in the rate of inflation, making it something manageable, than the student population. Students benefit directly from the successes that are so irritating to the Opposition. The House knows my commitment to this subject, but even those who are committed to it cannot seek to exempt the student population from the general effort necessary—some of it painful—to control the increase in inflation. Hon. Members should remember that inflation still exists. Some hon. Members almost suggest that there is no inflation, although it still exists at an infinitely more acceptable rate. That is of great benefit to those such as students who often have to live on very modest incomes.
I do not disguise the fact that I was dismayed that we did not make any improvement in the scales of parental contributions in this academic year. Unwittingly, we hit hard at a deserving group of parents. Their efforts to get their sons or daughters into higher or further education are considerable. Therefore, I warmly welcome the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8 November, implying that that process will be resumed in the forthcoming year. We may argue about percentages. but the percentage is considerable. Therefore, I whole-heartedly welcome that resumption.

Mr. Sheerman: May I bring the hon. Gentleman down to earth and refer him to the ordinary people who send their children to universities and polytechnics? Will he balance a slightly lower rate of inflation against the fact that between June and October students have no chance of earning any money in the economy that the Prime Minister and the Government preside over?

Sir William van Straubenzee: It is astonishing that an hon. Member—let alone an Opposition Member—could talk about a "slightly lower" rate of inflation. The fall has been dramatic.

Mr. Sheerman: What was the rate of inflation in May 1979?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's point. The Government that he supported passed on a rate of inflation—and we all know the delay in such matters—that rose at one point to 20 per cent.

Mr. Sheerman: What about the rate in May 1979?

Sir William van Straubenzee: That rate of inflation did much to undermine the problems and difficulties of those on small incomes. It does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth to raise that issue. I hope that he is taking the debate seriously.
I shall try to be brief, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I understand the problem of the parental contribution and of that part of it that may not be met by a parent. In a free society, it is extraordinarily difficult to find a method of enforcing payment other than via the total abolition of any means-tested benefit. I am sorry that we never moved—I suppose that we now never will—to the tax credit system which, we should remember, was vigorously opposed by the Labour Party. Had we done so, we could have incorporated in it a system of student finance which might have been more effective.
Finally, I take up the words of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. I am glad—I can claim to speak only for myself, but I suspect that I speak also for


others—that there are no proposals in these regulations for providing student support by way of loan, in whole or in part. I shall make two comments in this regard. Those who advocate a system of loan should first identify clearly whether that loan should bear a full commercial rate of interest. If it should bear that full commercial rate of interest at compound rates, with an appropriate period between graduation and repayment, I beg hon. Gentlemen on both sides to calculate the size of the burden which they then impose on the graduate. If they say "No, I do not propose to do that. I propose that it should be a special or an underpinned rate of interest", let them reflect that they are thereby financially assisting the best-off families. In a rich family there will be no other member of that unit who can borrow at specially privileged rates.
Secondly, I would like to know, with much greater clarity than I have heard, the method of recovery. It is sometimes said that one could use the country's banking system. We know—I remember it 10 years ago, and the situation is the same today—that the banking system of this country will not undertake that unless the Treasury underpins the loan. If the loan is underpinned, that is a resource that is committed, and a resource committed is increased expenditure. Thus, those who advocate this system may well find, contrary to what they suppose, that they are committing the Government to increase expenditure.
If it is not to be done through the national banking system, I shudder at the thought of a university loans board, a polytechnic loans board, or a University of Leeds loans board, and the problems of recovery. I ask those who advocate this scheme to think carefully before putting it into a manifesto.
My commitment is this. I believe that one of the remarkable features of student support in this country is that when we expanded it massively in the 1960s-it will always be associated with my noble Friend Viscount Eccles—and provided student support, a far wider social group of student used it and had access to it than would have happened if we had not had such student support. Any hon. Member on these Benches would tamper with it at their peril.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I agree with the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) on at least one point and that is his criticism of the concept of student loans, which was also voiced by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal Party. Their fears can probably now be set well at rest in the light of the Prime Minister's panegyric the other day. With families being urged to live within their means, even a radical figure such as the Secretary of State is unlikely to have his way on student loans.
I do not propose to follow the forceful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) on the Government's general parsimony in an area where one would have hoped and expected that of all others investment should be at the highest level and at an increasing level if we are to resume the place in the world which we all wish to enjoy.
I shall deal only with a relatively narrow matter which arises under the regulations where I regret that the

Government have palpably failed to put right what seems to me to be a grave defect and one which is likely to create considerable hardship.
The House will know that the basis of the mandatory grant has always been founded upon the concept of ordinary residence, which was satisfactory in the days when ordinary residence was understood to mean ordinary residence. Alas, today, indeed even since a year or so ago, that concept has changed as a result of a Court of Appeal decision, although it is still for the other place to overrule it if they wish to.
I wish to illustrate the hardship that is caused as a result of the change in the way the law is looked upon, subject to the House of Lord's decision, by reference to one case which came to me recently in my constituency.
That is the case of a family—a husband and wife and two grown up daughters—who came to Britain from South Africa—the wife and the daughters many years ago, the husband more recently. They are of Asian extraction and, like many people of that race, they are hard-working and conscientious. The husband did extremely well in South Africa and built up a considerable business.
Unhappily, the South African Government decided that the area where this family's business was situated would become a whites only area. As a result of that, the business, which should have been worth a great deal of money, became virtually worthless.
The parents, whose children were then quite young, decided that they would not allow their children to grow up in such a society and they decided there and then that they would come to Britain. The father started his business up again and before long he had built up sufficient capital to enable his wife and two young daughters to come to Britain. The wife thus had sufficient independent means to be allowed to remain and the children, being the age they were, were allowed to stay on annual visitors' permits.
The father stayed in South Africa and continued to build up his business until he was in a position to sell up and come here himself as a person with sufficient means to enable the whole family to live in Britain. The children did well at school and last year one applied for and obtained a grant to enable her to take a university place. But her younger sister—one year younger—this year, having done exceptionally well at school, applied for a grant to go to a teaching hospital as a medical student. She was informed that, as a result of the recent decision of the courts, she could not be regarded as a person whose ordinary residence was in this country. I can think of nothing more scandalous. Where was her ordinary residence if not in this country? Was it in South Africa, from which her parents and family had departed deliberately because of the circumstances that I have related to the House? If it was not in South Africa, where was it? If it was not in this country where the family had decided to come to live out the rest of their lives, where was it?
When I see the provisions of these regulations which do enable the concept of ordinary residence to be displaced, to be given a different meaning from the one the courts give it, to the benefit of the nationals of members of the European Community and I do not see the case to which I have referred being dealt with with any sympathy, I feel that there has been a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Government. Before the regulations were promulgated they should have known of the decisions that were being made and the narrow way in


which the concept of ordinary residence was being construed, and the effect of that narrow concept upon the rights of people in this country to receive a mandatory grant.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the whole matter stems from the Government's decision under the predecessor of the Secretary of State simply to leave to the courts—what has turned out to be the caprice of the courts over nearly two years—this important decision that should have been settled by proper legislation when the overseas students' fees were first introduced?

Mr. Silkin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If the courts are going to make a concept such as that of ordinary residence, which by itself is a perfectly simple expression that any layman could translate in ordinary terms, into a term of art with a narrow meaning, it is time for the Government of the day to stop the inevitable hardship which meant that one daughter was able to obtain a grant to go to university while the other, a year younger, was unable to be trained as a doctor in one of our great medical schools.
I hope that note will be taken of this and that the Government will look seriously into this matter. It needs only minor modification to put that type of hardship right. I very much hope that that modification before long will be made.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I wish to speak briefly on one aspect of the regulations about which I believe there is some common ground. I refer to parental contributions. I say common ground, because even my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have some sympathy with the points that I am about to make.
The House decided in the past that at the age of 18 people reach adult life. At the age of 18, a person can vote, he can fight for his country and, as we have recently discovered, he can even die for his country. At the age of 18, he can have been married for two years. But if at the age of 18 he decides to go to university, he is suddenly categorised as being dependent on his parents. That is absurd, archaic, unjust and most unfair.
If 10,000, 50,000 or 100,000 people were involved in this anomaly, perhaps we could sustain and put up with it, but the facts are that each year 340,000 students are assessed for parental contribution. On the basis that they have just under two parents each, and including themselves. a million of our citizens are touched by this monstrosity.
I sometimes wonder what Governments think the citizens of this country do with their free time. Not only is one involved each year in filling in tax forms for the Inland Revenue. Not only are many private individuals and small business men involved in filling up VAT returns for the dreaded Customs and Excise, but also many of our people—340,000 groups of parents—are visited each year by the star chamber of the local authority, which again goes through their personal affairs and again asks them to itemise their income, their expenses, their mortgages and every detail of their financial affairs. Not only does it ask them to do that but they have to justify and sustain everything that they have put on that piece of paper. They have to go through their filing systems and find out how

their affairs have been conducted in the previous year yet again. That is the administration that we foist upon our people.
But as well as that there is the tax, the cost. We all know that on marginal income we are talking about £1 in £7, but it is not that at all. That is because most people on marginal income have already paid 39 per cent. national insurance and income tax, so it is £1 in every £4 of marginal income that is taken away from people in this parental contribution.

Mr. George Cunningham: That is not true.

Mr. Marlow: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Cunningham: No

Mr. Marlow: I will be accurate, actually. I have done a calculation on this. It is £1 in £4·27, so I am slightly wrong, but it is more or less what I said. I am glad that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and I are in accord.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marlow: I will not, because so many hon. Members want to speak. I am not giving way. The group of people to whom I refer are in many other respects hit by Government, and this has an effect on families. In some cases, of course, it is the only child who is at university, but many of these families have other children, so on their marginal income they are paying this massive impost when they have families to bring up. In many respects they are the least well off in society.
What is worse than the impost on parents is the effect on students. It divides our student community into two groups—those who receive the full grant, perhaps including the full parental contribution, and those who do not. There are 240,000 students each year who are deemed to be in receipt of parental contribution. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has said that perhaps 70 per cent. of those do not receive their parental contribution, or at any rate do not receive it in full. That gives us a figure of 175,000 students. Half the student body in higher education is not in receipt of full parental contribution.
There are those whose parents do not get on with them and who are not going to make up the money. There are those whose parents have commitments to other children, perhaps in private education. There are those who have large families and who cannot make up the money. It is divisive in families and it is divisive in universities. It is unfair and it is something that before very long the Government should do something about.
Suggestions have been put about that there should be a system of student loans. I will not comment on that except to say that if the total amount taken in parental contribution had been spread among the student population in the last year for which figures were available, which was 1980–81, that would amount to a loan being required for each student—that is, being provided for each student—of £285 a year. So the money could be raised in that way instead, and in that way we could get rid of the parental contribution. It is not just. It is unjust. It is past time that something was done about it.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say that £165 million is involved. That £165 million breaks down at roughly £690 a student. It is called a contribution, but it is not a contribution: it is a tax.
My hon. Friend will probably say that we are talking about money which goes into the education pool and that if the parental contribution were done away with £165 million would have to be taken from education expenditure. If it were a contribution, that might be so, but if it is a tax it is part of the total income that the Chancellor has to raise each year to balance his books.
We read in the press that in the next Budget the Chancellor will be in the happy position of being able, not to give money back, but to allow people to keep more money. That will involve £2,000 million—perhaps £3,000 million. Surely a mere £165 million could be given priority when the Chancellor considers his Budget. I hope that he will consider that carefully.

Mr. Christopher Price: I intervene briefly to try to put straight a statement made by the Under-Secretary in what he will admit to being not one of his best speeches. He was trying to take credit for there being no fall in the age participation rate, in spite of him telling the Select Committee that it would fall.
The Government's policy is to make it more difficult for young people to go to university, polytechnic or college. Through their bungling incompetence this year they have failed to carry out their policy. Young people's desire to go to college and fill the empty spaces which the Government had not expected to be filled has temporarily and briefly allowed the Under-Secretary to make his statement.

Mr. Frank Dobson: But they are working on it.

Mr. Price: As my hon. Friend says, the Government are working on that. All the plans for two-year degrees and cutting expenditure on colleges, polytechnics and teacher training show how the Government will view the fightback by students to keep as decent a chance as they always have had to go to university. When the plans are fully in swing once more, the Government will make it more difficult for young people to go to university.
For the Under-Secretary to take credit for the fact that the Government's plans have gone wrong because they have not succeeded in cutting the number of students as much as they wished is an extraordinary example of casuistry. I hope that we shall hear no more of it.
I back what has been said about ordinary residence. One of my constituents has started at a polytechnic. Because the House of Lords has not yet pronounced on the meaning of ordinary residence, my constituent does not yet know whether he will get a grant. He has been in Britain most of his life and he should receive a grant. He does not know whether he will have to pay the whole student fee or the overseas student fee, which is prohibitive and would force him to leave his course in mid-stream.
The Government's irresponsibility in allowing the ordinary residence problem to continue for two years while waiting for the House of Lords to pronounce on this question has meant that thousands of students do not know their status or whether they can afford to stay at university

or college. That is scandalous. The word "scandalous" is appropriate. I hope that, as a result of the debate, the Government will think about the matter again and clear it up.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I wish to speak on behalf of the students at Brunel university in my constituency. I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about the level of the parental contribution and, while we all understand that students like everyone else, have to make a contribution towards the reduction of public expenditure, I stress that the freeze on the level of the parental contribution has caused hardship, particularly to marginal students.
It is serious that a number of parents cannot or will not make the full parental contribution. That fact is accepted too easily and has not been investigated carefully enough. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to tell us what investigations the DES has made in recent months into the reasons why so many parents are unwilling or unable to pay the full contribution.
What is the Department's policy on the uprating of the parental contribution, and does my hon. Friend see any possibility of restoring the position that existed before the freeze last year? It is a serious problem. At the bottom of the income limit a number of students are finding life difficult and some are dropping out of university. The matter concerns many hon. Members on both sides of the House and the Secretary of State and his colleagues should direct their attention to it and endeavour to put it right.
I recognise that the parental contribution limit is to increase for the next financial year. I welcome that, but many fair-minded, reasonable students, who are finding life extremely difficult, believe that the increase will not be sufficient. Of course, many groups say "I am not getting enough. The increase in the Government allowance is not enough. I want more and you can put up taxation". We are all familiar with that cry, but I hope that before my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dismisses the matter as one of only marginal importance he will be able to tell us that the DES is carrying out investigations to learn why so many parents are unable or unwilling to make the full contribution.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would also tell us what steps his Department is taking to make parents more aware of the their obligation to support their student children and to make an investment in the future of our country.

Mr. Waldegrave: By leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I have sympathy for a number of points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) mentioned the parental contribution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) urged us to abolish it immediately. To the extent that he was bidding for resources from the Treasury for my Department, I pay tribute to him, but if the Treasury were to release £160 million to the education budget, not all of it could go towards abolishing the parental contribution.
However, we sympathise with parents who are pressed by the thresholds. I pay tribute to the powerful speech made, as usual, my hon. Friend the Member for


Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) on that issue. We have increased the parental contribution threshold quite generously—8 per cent. for the next financial year—and I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and Northampton, North will recognise that as a useful step.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) asked me—I failed to respond in my first speech—about our proposals to change the arrangements for travel costs. Those proposals follow a recent Rayner scrutiny of the administration of student awards, which concluded that the arrangements for travel costs were extremely expensive for local authorities in terms of manpower and that the detailed checking of each claim cannot be properly carried out by local authorities. We are considering the matter. We shall discuss it with the National Union of Students and other interest groups to see whether we can find a method of saving manpower costs. We shall also try to ensure that the reality of what is happening is more closely aligned with what is possible for local authorities. However, I cannot outline any new arrangements now.
The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said, unfairly, that Conservative Members do not understand the seriousness of the matter. That is not so. We have acknowledged openly—I do so again tonight—that we have asked for a contribution from students that is important to the overall savings on public expenditure and to the maintenance of the institutions available to those students. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) returned to that point. It may gall him to know that the participation rates have been maintained. We did not believe that it would be possible with the funds available and we pay tribute to the local authority colleges that have maintained the age and qualified participation rates so that they follow the bulge in the age profile. All hon. Members will be grateful for that and will wish to welcome it.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: There is no dispute between us on that—

Hon. Members: "Give way".

Mr. O'Neill: The Minister has not yet taken up the point that was hinted at by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that degree courses in Scotland last for four years, so that the financial hardship is prolonged by 25 per cent. What does he propose to do about that?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman recognises that courses are longer in Scotland, with the result that expenditure by the taxpayer is that much greater—£4,000 or £5,000 of the institutional costs per student. The hon. Gentleman must remember the other side of the equation.
I know that we are debating primarily the regulations for 1982–83, but I must respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, who supported our improvements in next year's awards. His comments and warnings about a loans system carry even more weight and we must listen to them carefully. There are no proposals before the House for a loans system, but I urge the House not to be too parochial. Many countries whose political bias is acceptable to the Opposition parties have sensible loan schemes. The hon. Member for Derby, North took a sensible line on the matter in Committee. He said that it

would be foolish to introduce a foolish loans scheme, but that it was possible to design a sensible loans scheme. That moderate position is entirely characteristic of the hon. Gentleman, and it would be the best view for the House to take.
We recognise that, in recent years, there has been a fall in the real value of the student award. That is the contribution that we have had to make, in this part of the budget, to the control of inflation. However, I urge hon. Members to remember that the fall is not as catastrophic as people say. I shall remind the House of the figures once again. There has been an increase in the London award index during the past 10 years from 100 to 106. That is not a catastrophic fall. In terms of the index for the ordinary away student, there has been a fall of 4 per cent. in 10 years. At a time of world recession, that is not a very bad deal for students.
I therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote with the Government and to endorse the deal that we have managed to achieve for students at a time of very great difficulty for the economy in general.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 274.

Division No. 15]
[11.45 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dewar, Donald


Adams, Allen
Dixon, Donald


Allaun, Frank
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Dormand, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Dubs, Alfred


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunnett, Jack


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Eastham, Ken


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Beith, A. J.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
English, Michael


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans, John (Newton)


Bradley, Tom
Ewing, Harry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Field, Frank


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Ford, Ben


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ian
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Canavan, Dennis
Freud, Clement


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Carmichael, Neil
George, Bruce


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cartwright, John
Golding, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Graham, Ted


Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cook, Robin F.
Hardy, Peter


Cowans, Harry
Harman, Harriet (PecKham)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Crawshaw, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cryer, Bob
Haynes, Frank


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Heffer, Eric S.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Dalyell, Tam
Home Robertson, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Homewood, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hooley, Frank


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Howells, Geraint


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hoyle, Douglas






Huckfield, Les
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


John, Brynmor
Robertson, George


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Rooker, J. W.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roper, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Lamond, James
Ryman, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Sever, John


Lestor, Miss Joan
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Litherland, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Short, Mrs Renée


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Skinner, Dennis


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


McKelvey, William
Spriggs, Leslie


McNamara, Kevin
Steel, Rt Hon David


McWilliam, John
Stoddart, David


Marks, Kenneth
Stott, Roger


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Maxton, John
Tilley, John


Maynard, Miss Joan
Tinn, James


Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wardell, Gareth


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Watkins, David


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Weetch, Ken


Newens, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Michael


Ogden, Eric
White, Frank R.


O'Neill, Martin
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Whitehead, Phillip


Palmer, Arthur
Wigleyt, Dafydd


Park, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Parker, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Pavitt, Laurie
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Woodall, Alec


Penhaligon, David
Woolmer, Kenneth


Pitt, William Henry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Prescott, John



Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Race, Reg
Mr. Ron Leighton and


Radice, Giles
Mr. George Morton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Berry, Hon Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Best, Keith


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ancram, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davision, Sir John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Blaker, Peter


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Body, Richard


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Banks, Robert
Bowden, Andrew





Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hawksley, Warren


Bright, Graham
Hayhoe, Barney


Brinton, Tim
Heddle, John


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hicks, Robert


Brotherton, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hogg, Hon Dougls (Gr'th'm)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hooson, Tom


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hordern, peter


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Buck, Antony
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Butler, Hon Adam
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Clegg, Sir Walter
Knight, Mrs Jill


Colvin, Michael
Knox, David


Cope, John
Latham, Michael


Corrie, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Costain, Sir Albert
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Critchley, Julian
Lee, John


Crouch, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Dover, Denshore
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Loveridge, John


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lyell, Nicholas


Eggar, Tim
McCrindle, Robert


Eyre, Reginald
Macfarlane, Neil


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fell, Sir Anthony
McQuarrie, Albert


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Madel, David


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Major, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marlow, Antony


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mates, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Mather, Carol


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mawby, Ray


Fox, Marcus
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mayhew, Patrick


Fry, Peter
Mellor, David


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Gow, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moore, John


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Greenway, Harry
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grieve, Percy
Mudd, David


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Murphy, Christopher


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Myles, David


Grist, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Grylls, Michael
Needham, Richard


Gummer, John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A.
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Normanton, Tom


Hannam, John
Onslow, Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Richard (SW Herts)






Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Parris, Matthew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Sproat, Iain


Patten, John (Oxford)
Squire, Robin


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stainton, Keith


Pawsey, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Percival, Sir Ian
Stanley, John


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Pink, R. Bonner
Stevens, Martin


Porter, Barry
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tapsell, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Renton, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Donald


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thornton, Malcolm


Rifkind, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Trippier, David


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rossi, Hugh
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rost, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Royle, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walker, B. (Perth)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walters, Dennis


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Ward, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shersby, Michael
Wheeler, John


Silvester, Fred
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sims, Roger
Whitney, Raymond


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Dudley
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Spence, John
Wolfson, Mark





Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and



Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — DIVORCE JURISDICTION, COURT FEES AND LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made—[Mr. Berry]—and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland),

That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DIVORCE JURISDICTION, COURT FEES AND LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in moneys so payable under any other Act which is attributable to any Act of the present Session to extend the jurisdiction of sheriffs in Scotland in relation to actions for divorce, and to make new provision in Scotland as to the fees and outlays of counsel and solicitors in relation both to legal aid and to the giving of legal advice and assistance under the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972.—[Mr. Berry.]

Orders of the Day — STANDING COMMITTEES ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That during proceedings in the Standing Committee in respect of the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1357) paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.) shall apply with the substitution in line 41 of 'two and a half hours' for 'one and a half hours'.—[Mr. Berry.]

Orders of the Day — Commission for Local Administration (Report)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

Mr. John Heddle: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to raise the subject of the annual report of the Commission for Local Administration in England.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for attending at this late hour to listen to my points. I am particularly pleased to have the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), whose knowledge of these matters is considerable and whose company I very much welcome.
As the Minister will know, if his doctor makes the wrong diagnosis; if his dentist poisons his gum; or if his surveyor fails to recognise the dry rot in a house that my hon. Friend wishes to buy in the constituency that he nurses so assiduously, he can sue those people for professional negligence. The doctor, the dentist or the surveyor has recourse to his professional negligence policy and can make good the damage that my hon. Friend the Minister may have suffered as a result of that negligence. Such is not the case if a member of the public—Mr. or Mrs. John Citizen—suffers loss through the negligence or maladministration of a local authority.
I am delighted to have the company of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) who has, through his thriving practice at the Bar, great experience of these matters. I draw the attention of the House to the annual report of the Commissioner for Local Administration in England, who is commonly known as the local government Ombudsman. The Commissioner's terms of reference are similar to those for Scotland and Wales but, as I shall illustrate, are different from those for Northern Ireland.
The system as it works in Northern Ireland affords greater protection to Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen in two crucial respects. Direct access to the Ombudsman is available to members of the public in Northern Ireland but not to the public in England, Wales and Scotland and redress in cases when the Ombudsman finds in the complainant's favour—the complainant in this case being Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen—and that the local authority has been guilty of maladministration or negligence is different.
The office of local government Ombudsman, whose official title is commissioner for local administration, was established by the Conservative Government in 1974. People who feel that they have been treated unjustly by their local council and have thereby suffered financial loss or some other damage can obtain the satisfaction of knowing that an independent umpire—I believe that to be the definition of Ombudsman—has examined the matter but cannot necessarily obtain compensation for the damage or loss that they have suffered. They must make their complaint through a councillor.
I suspect that few of my constituents or the rate-paying public in the West Midlands know of the existence of the office of the local government Ombudsman. Few of them know that he or she resides in Queen Anne's Gate here in

the City of Westminster and few know who their local councillor is. Therefore, they are debarred from making a complaint through the normal procedures.
In practice, an increasing number of complaints are sent to the Ombudsman when the general public have taken the trouble to find out what procedures are available to them without going through a councillor. When that happens, a complaint is not accepted, but the complainant is advised by the local government ombudsman of the correct procedure. My hon. Friend will know that in England, 1,953 complaints in 1981–82 as compared with 1,756 complaints in 1980–81 were made direct to the ombudsman.
The English commissioner says that about 50 per cent. of direct complaints come back, properly referred by the councillor to him. Others are settled locally and others are lost in the mists of apathy. A similar pattern has emerged with the Scottish commissioner who, in his most recent report expressed anxiety at the number of people who, having made a direct complaint, have felt disheartened by the statutory reference requirements and have not proceeded to make their genuine complaints known.
It is clear that many people are having to ask their councillor to refer their complaint to the Ombudsman. Moreover, local councillors cannot always be counted upon to make that complaint, for reasons that I shall deal with later. It is a cumbersome way of proceeding. For example, what is the position of the local councillor when he disagrees with the complainant's complaint or when he is politically in tune with the local authority? I shall give a specific case in a moment.
I shall quote from the report of the Scottish commissioner for the current year. He said:
Certain councillors definitely consider it to be disloyal to refer to the commissioner a complaint against their council … There are occasions on which particular councillors may be so identified with the policy criticised in the complaint that they may find it difficult if not impossible to agree to refer the complaint to him.
Baroness Serota has just retired as commissioner for England. In her latest report, she said:
Experience over eight years clearly supports the commission's proposal that people should be able to complain either direct to me or through a member",
meaning through a member of the council.
The safeguard for authorities would remain because no complaint could be investigated by a local Ombudsman until the authority concerned has had a reasonable opportunity to consider it.
That proposal is almost identical to that proposed by the committee of Justice that sat in 1980 and considered the whole terms of reference of the local government Ombudsman. I understand that the National Consumer Council, which has helped by providing me with background information, has been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services. In his reply, my right hon. Friend referred to the necessity for the local government Ombudsman to sift through trivial complaints to prevent his being inundated with trivia. I understand that.
The Ombudsman already has the work involved in dealing with complaints that he or she receives directly in any event. There is no evidence that they are more or less trivial than the complaints received by the Ombudsman through councillors. Research by the English commission shows that over 90 per cent. of people who complained direct to the local government Ombudsman had already complained to the council, to a councillor or to both.
There is little sifting left to do. In some cases, the councillor may secure a local settlement to the complaint. In most cases, that possibility has been exhausted. To insist that the direct complaint should go back to a councillor who is busy with other matters imposes an unnecessary burden on the councillor who is, by and large, unpaid for the time that he gives to these services. It undermines public confidence by seeming to create yet another hurdle in the method of pursuing a grievance.
It would be far better to allow direct access generally and for the Ombudsman to decide in a consistent way which complaints to pursue. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, this is precisely what happens in Northern Ireland. The local Ombudsman, called I believe, a Commissioner for Complaints, is able to deal with the volume of complaints satisfactorily. My concern is not with the detail but with the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega—the ease with which Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen can apply to the Ombudsman to have his or her case considered. When the Ombudsman determines that negligence or maladministration exists, some method has to be devised whereby the public can obtain redress, damages and satisfaction from the local council, as would be possible where a doctor, dentist or surveyor is involved.
I wish now to refer to the enforcement of the Ombudsman's recommendations. The Ombudsman in England, in. Wales and in Scotland operates under terms of reference that preclude him from making his findings binding upon the local authority or the defaulting councillors. Even if the Ombudsman concludes that there has been maladministration or negligence, leading to injustice or to a loss, and suggests a remedy, the local authority is free to ignore his findings.
It is important to keep the problem in perspective. According to the local government Ombudsman for England, 856 out of 918 findings of injustice arising from maladministration between April 1974 and March 1982 were satisfactorily agreed where the final outcome was known. That is 93 per cent. This leaves 7 per cent. unresolved in the eyes of the Ombudsman and possibly more in the eyes of the complainant. Under the cumbersome procedure that operates, there may be a considerable number of complaints that never reach the Ombudsman's desk. That is by no means catastrophic, but it offends the public sense of natural justice to see a finding against a powerful and, for Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen, unaccountable public body being completely disregarded.
Those instances tend to reinforce the often unfair accusation made by members of the general public that the Ombudsman is a toothless watchdog. The purpose of my seeking the Adjournment debate is to endeavour to give that watchdog more teeth.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that the chairman of the Select Committee, on which I sat, on occasions had to call individuals and other people representing groups before the Committee on certain matters, when the Ombudsman was dissatisfied because action had not been taken.

Mr. Heddle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. I value it, knowing that he and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester have great experience of those matters. I know of my hon. and learned Friend's close co-operation with the parliamentary Ombudsman.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be aware, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), of the classic case of a Midlands local authority. It dillied and dallied for two years on an application by a council tenant to exercise his right to buy, while the council shuffled the right-to-buy application forms from out tray to in tray, from in tray to tea tray and back again. In the meantime the value of the house that the secure tenant wished to buy increased by £1,400. So frustrated was the tenant by the delaying tactics of the hostile local authority that he reported the matter, through a councillor, to the local government Ombudsman. He called in the papers from both sides and deliberated on the matter. He determined that the council had been negligent in the way in which it had dealt with the application by the tenant to buy his home. In the intervening two-year period, the value of the house had increased by £1,400. The local government Ombudsman suggested that the local authority should reduce the price of that house for the secure tenant by £1,400. What happened? Nothing. The local authority decided to ignore the local government Ombudsman's recommendations.
The purpose of my raising the matter is to seek to ensure that no other secure tenants exercising their democratic right to buy under the Housing Act 1980—and, I hope, more, when the Housing and Buildng Control Bill, which we discussed today extends the right to buy to more people—will be subjected to municipal gazumping.
My point is not about the rights and wrongs of council house sales. It is that councils can undermine the intention of legislation. If they are found guilty of maladministration or loss, they can still ignore the findings of the umpire and go scot free. Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen are therefore left to pick up the tab.
Various solutions to the problem have been canvassed. The most draconian would be to give the Ombudsman or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the power to direct councils to comply with the Ombudsman's findings. That would necessitate an appeals procedure. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester will agree, that would elevate the matter to a judicial vein. We wish to avoid that.
The informal co-operation at present between authorities and the Ombudsman could be undermined, which allows a successful conclusion to be reached in most cases. Local government could adopt a policy of voluntary compliance with the Ombudsman's findings. Many local authorities, certainly Lichfield district council and Tamworth borough council, have done that, even when they have disagreed with the Ombudsman, so that they can keep the peace and retain good will between the ratepayers and the town hall.
I should like to draw the Under-Secretary of State's attention to another solution. In Northern Ireland the operation works differently and apparently more successfully in cases of redress. I quote from the pamphlet of the Northern Ireland Ombudsman which was put out by the Commissioner for Complaints, as he is called there.
The Commissioner has no power to compel a settlement, but the complainant has the right to apply to the county court for compensation for a grievance which the Commissioner has upheld but which has not been settled".
That policy was endorsed by the committee of Justice in its report in 1980, which I commend to my hon. Friend. It has not led to a long succession of complaints to the courts. On the contrary, according to the information that


I have received, since 1976 only one case that would have fallen within the local Ombudsman's remit in England, Wales and Scotland, would have gone to court.
It would appear that the court acts as the long-stop that is there when needed and perhaps, consequently, hardly, if ever, used. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will tell me that the Ombudsman is not a court of law or an arm of Government. I accept that. The service relies on sensible working relationships with local authorities. At the same time, it must retain its credibility with the public. That is most important. The present defects in respect of direct access and redress seem to detract slightly from the latter. They can be rectified without damage to the former, and I commend those suggestions to my hon. Friend.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) on being fortunate enough to raise this subject and on the way in which he has argued his case that there should be at least two fairly major changes in the way in which the local government Ombudsman works. My hon. Friend will expect me to comment on those two matters and I shall do so. However, let me set the scene concerning the role of the Ombudsman.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the local government Ombudsman was set up by part III of the Local Government Act 1974. It provides the citizen who feels aggrieved at the way in which his affairs have been handled with the opportunity to place the facts before an independent person. As my hon. Friend conceded, he is not someone with a judicial role, but an independent person. His title is the Commissioner for Local Administration, but the Ombudsman is rightly his popular name. He can look into the matter impartially to see whether there has been maladministration causing injustice, and, if so, what can be done to remedy it.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would join me in paying tribute to the work of the commission and particularly that of its founder chairman, Baroness Serota, who recently retired, having done much to establish the commission in English public life. My hon. Friend referred to her trenchant foreword to the latest copy of the report for the year ending 31 March 1982. In that report, Lady Serota expresses her appreciation
of the way in which most authorities have responded to requests for information, proposals about local settlements and most important of all in readily accepting a Local Ombudsman's judgment that their maladministration has caused injustice to individual complainants and offering satisfactory remedies.
I do not want anything that I may say tonight to obscure the excellent work done both by the commission and by the bodies investigated in establishing the local Ombudsman system in this country.
The report shows that 2,706 complaints were referred to the commissioners during the year 1981–82, but, as the report notes, that is a small number compared with the vast amount of administrative action in the course of a year on the part of the authorities within their jurisdiction. Of the 2,500 complaints disposed of during the year, 389 were settled locally, and 279 resulted in the issue of a formal report. Maladministration with injustice was found in 158 cases, but without injustice in 15. The figure for

maladministration represents 62 per cent. of the cases in which there was a formal investigation or report, but only 8 per cent. of the total number of complaints considered.
I trust that my hon. Friend will share my gratification in noting that the number of complaints settled locally is steadily increasing.
On the question of remedies for injustice, since the system was established the commissioners have found maladministration in 1,054 cases. By 31 March 1982, a conclusion had been reached in 918 of those cases and the commissioners regarded the outcome as unsatisfactory in 62. This latter figure represents between 6 and 7 per cent. of the cases settled, as my hon. Friend said.
I well understand the feelings of the complainant who takes his case to a commissioner and receives a confirmation that the local authority had mishandled a matter, only to find that the authority is not prepared to put the matter right in the way the commissioner recommends.
The intention behind the legislation is that the commissioners should achieve results by the force of their arguments, the weight of public opinion and the publicity that attaches thereto. On the whole, the figures demonstrate that this pressure works. Having made that point, however, I recognise that this is scarcely a satisfactory answer to those involved in the comparatively few cases where the authority will not accept the recommendation. However, I think that we have to weigh carefully the suggestions which have been made, and to which my hon. Friend referred, for attempting to deal with this situation by changes in the legislation.
To give the commissioners power themselves to enforce their recommendations would raise substantial issues of principle. It would give appointed persons the power to direct the actions of elected bodies. Although that is by no means unique, it is an important step. If that step were contemplated, local authorities would inevitably argue for a right of appeal against the decision. As my hon. Friend conceded, that would lead to increased costs and delay. It would also involve a judicial aura descending on proceedings, which inevitably makes them more formal, probably more difficult to operate, and certainly slower. I do not say that the problems are insuperable, but I think that they are formidable, and certainly they alter the characteristics of the present system which to some extent have flourished on informality and ready access to local authorities.
My hon. Friend's comment that he thought it unlikely that local electors in his constituency would know the councillor with whom they might lodge a complaint is somewhat surprising, because it is surely incumbent on all those who are elected to local authorities to ensure that they are available to constituents who have cause for complaints about the actions of the local authority. I am sure that my hon. Friend carried out that role most assiduously in attending to his constituents' requirements.
The other suggestion which has been argued is that the successful complainant should be able to apply to the courts for compensation if the body complained against fails to provide a remedy. It is true that Justice recommended that course in a report published in 1980, and it is also advocated by the National Consumer Council. My hon. Friend said that there is provision to that effect in the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints Act 1967.
I remind my hon. Friend that there are substantial differences in the context in which local government is


currently structured and the powers that local government currently possess in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend may feel that the context in which complaints of the kind which may most readily come to mind in connection with the activities of the local authority are perhaps better dealt with in a slightly more judicial process than those that are available in this country, where happily the context of both local and national government is significantly different. Therefore, I do not believe that too much weight should be placed on the special provisions made under the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints Act 1967. Whatever that may be, it is certainly a case to quote. My hon. Friend has evoked sympathy by the suggestion that such a route be looked at.
However, we must surely consider carefully what effect such a provision would have on the system as a whole. It would result in much more formality in the investigations. All participants would approach the investigation on the basis that it might lead eventually to proceedings in court. That could lengthen the process and lead to further delay in producing reports and in providing remedies.
May I stress my conviction that the success that has been achieved by the local government Ombudsman primarily rests upon a quick settlement of the issue? Many matters complained of lend themselves readily to quick informal settlement procedures. In that connection, too, the role of the local authorities is probably important. In most instances they can, quite rightly, be the place of first resort. The Ombudsman is frequently the place of last resort.
It is significant that, concerned though they are about these cases where local authorities will not carry out their recommendations, the commissioners have not yet argued that they, or anyone else, should have power to enforce their recommendations. I must tell my hon. Friend, as I think he is aware, that we have no plans to amend the Act on that point. However, that does not mean that we are not fully alive to the difficulties that he has posed.
We have already agreed, when a suitable opportunity occurs, to strengthen the legislation in a minor respect by requiring authorities formally to consider second reports from the local commissioner, just as they have to consider the initial reports. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services said in reply to my hon. Friend's written questions on 28 October, the matter is being kept under review.
The essential factor will be the attitude of individual local authorities which are asked by the commissioners to take action. I should hope that in future they will feel able to accept the verdicts of the commissioners even though they may not agree with them in every respect. I welcome the view that my hon. Friend has quoted vis-a-vis Lichfield and Tamworth.
Meanwhile, I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the representative body, which is the body set up under the Local Government Act 1974 to represent authorities in these matters, is also worried about the position, and is asking the local authority associations to bring to the attention of local authorities the concern which is felt about those few authorities which fail to comply with the commissioners' recommendations. I hope that the associations will respond to that approach. I am sure that an effective system operating on the present voluntary basis is far preferable to litigation or to some other solution involving compulsion.
My hon. Friend referred to the commission's proposal that the legislation should be amended to enable people with complaints to submit them either through a member of the authority—as the Act now requires—or direct to the local commissioner. That is one of a series of recommendations which the commission has put to the Department. I know that the commission feels strongly that the present requirement for reference of complaints by councillors is an unnecessary obstacle in the path of the citizen requiring help.
However, there are arguments on both sides. Local settlement, as I have already said, plays an important part in the procedures. The legislation was designed to enable the local authority member to play a positive part in dealing with grievances. The representative body is concerned that if the commission's proposal were implemented the role of the elected member, and thus of local authorities in general, would to some extent be undermined. If a member fails—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.